VAT: Listed Places of Worship

The Lord Bishop of London: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress they have made in negotiations with the European Commission to introduce a 5 per cent rate of VAT on repairs and maintenance to listed places of worship; and when they expect the necessary changes to the European Union VAT regime to be made.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are negotiating hard in the current EU negotiations for a reduced rate of VAT on the repair and maintenance of listed places of worship. We recognise the importance to the community of these buildings and the heavy burden that their upkeep can impose, particularly on small congregations.
	In the mean time, we continue to provide support through the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, which has paid out grants in excess of £15 million since it began in 2001. In addition, English Heritage has offered to listed places of worship a total of £75 million in grant-in-aid since 1997.

The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his courteous and very constructive reply. Is he aware that a delegation led by one of his colleagues from another place—the Second Church Estates Commissioner—met yesterday with Commissioner Fritz Bolkenstein to discuss the VAT issue? One of the difficulties seems to be a lack of clarity about the different regimes which obtain in member countries of the Union on caring for historic buildings, and not least ecclesiastical buildings. Would the Minister be willing to use his good offices to assist in a survey of the comparative regimes in the Union as part of the campaign to preserve flexibility in VAT rates; a campaign in which the Government and all those who care for historic community assets are united?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that the Government are in favour of flexibility in VAT regimes; always provided of course that by encouraging flexibility we do not sacrifice the derogations we already have, some of which are not shared and are envied by other member states. Certainly, the suggestion that there should be a survey of actual practices in different member states which exercise local options is a very valuable one. I should like to think about it and communicate with the right reverend Prelate.

Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, it was very encouraging to hear what the Minister just said, and I wish them well in Brussels. Does he agree that it is better to have zero VAT if possible and not to resort to grants because that is double bureaucracy? After all, churches are used for entertainment, tourism, education and so many valuable things that they are worth a zero VAT rating.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree that we would prefer to have a reduced rate of VAT rather than the grant system. I think the Churches would agree that a grant system is better than nothing.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I declare an interest as a clergy spouse. In the spirit of flexibility, would the Minister consider extending the reduced rate of VAT currently being contemplated for listed places of worship to unlisted places of worship, on the basis that whether or not a church is architecturally distinguished it still plays a major part in binding communities together?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have a number of priorities to balance. There are indeed unlisted places of worship. There are also other listed public buildings which are not places of worship in charitable or non-profit occupation and use. It is not easy to suggest any extension to what we are fighting for—and have not yet obtained—when we are still in negotiation.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of concerns on another aspect of zero rating on VAT—that of the charitable sector in this country—where the abolition of zero rating on issues such as the purchase of research equipment or the sale of donated goods would have tremendous detrimental effects on many charities. I remind the House of my interest as chairman of Cancer Research UK, which would stand to lose something like £13 million if the proposals were to go ahead. Will my noble friend reiterate the Government's hitherto very robust stand on this and confirm that they will be willing to use their veto on the Council of Ministers if necessary?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is indeed the case that any Commission proposal to remove the zero-rate derogations would require unanimity. This covers not just equipment for charities, but children's clothes and footwear and also equipment for disabled people. So it is very important to us—important to the extent of more than £1 billion—that we do not lose these derogations. We would indeed be prepared to veto any proposal which would bring that about.

The Lord Bishop of Derby: My Lords, I echo the appreciation of the Churches and faith communities for the Government's consistent support for this project for VAT reform. Given that the European Commission's initial proposals about changes to the VAT regime did not appear to favour the case being made by Her Majesty's Government, will the noble Lord assure all UK faith groups that the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme will be allowed to continue in the event of failure in the EU VAT negotiations?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can go part way towards that. I can certainly give an assurance that the grants will remain in place until the outcome of the review is known. To go beyond that is more than can be expected of any Treasury spokesman.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, I was greatly heartened by the Minister's initial reply to the right reverend Prelate. Does he agree that charging VAT on the repair of existing buildings discourages their reuse or repair? Of course, that encourages urban sprawl on greenbelt land. I must declare an interest as the treasurer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Architecture and Planning.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand the argument that is made for what is called "flat VAT"—there is certainly a possible distortion if there is an encouragement to new construction and a discouragement to repair. That is particularly important for listed buildings. But I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that we have a zero rate for construction that includes buildings for charitable purposes and housing. To lose that would be a severe blow indeed; but we do not intend that to happen.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what is the position generally in the European Community? For example, does the Church of Rome have to pay VAT on the maintenance of its cathedrals?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would rather duck the first question than the second one, I think, although I really want to duck them both. What is the general state of affairs in the European Community? I could give an hour-long speech on that. I do not know what the Church of Rome does, but of course Catholic churches and cathedrals are included in listed places of worship.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is working on the idea of setting up a database as a guide to good practice on tax incentives and to identify anomalies? Does he support that initiative?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, indeed, my Lords.

Genetically Modified Crops

Lord Rotherwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their policy towards their legal liability for accidental contamination by genetically modified crops.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission is due to submit a report to Government later this month on the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops and the related issues of liability. We will consider our policy further in the light of that report.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord says about consideration in the light of the report, but perhaps he might say a little more. I declare an interest as a farmer, although not one who grows GM crops. In the absence of insurance cover, what arrangements would the Government make to protect farmers who grow GM crops from suffering economic loss as a result of breaches of statutory thresholds through no fault of their own?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is precisely the area on which the Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission is about to advise. If we were to allow the growth of GM crops on a commercial scale in the UK—a question on which we have not yet decided—there would clearly need to be guidelines for the co-existence of such crops with non-GM conventional and organic crops. Conditions would have to be set for such growth going ahead and breach of those conditions could lead to liability on the GM farmer. The European Commission has already introduced broad guidelines for member states, but our UK guidelines will be based on the advice we receive from the AEBC.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, given the "unsafe" verdict of his department following trials of GM sugar beet and oilseed rape, will the Minister spell out that they will ban such GM crops in the UK or, if not, accept legal liability for contamination from such crops?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that we now have the reports on three crops. He uses the word "unsafe"; we were considering the environmental rather than the human health impact. There was a greater detrimental effect on the environment from two of those crops compared with conventional crops. We will clearly need to take that finding into account in considering any application to grow such crops. Were they or any other GM crops to be allowed to go ahead—which is entirely hypothetical—they would be subject to the guidelines, on the details of which we are expecting advice within the next few weeks.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, over what distance do the Government consider that wind-borne and insect-borne contamination from GM crops can be spread?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is no simple answer to that. As they are already in the public arena, I am happy to furnish the noble Lord with the reports on the crops involved. It depends on the local conditions, the type of crops and the time of year. It is precisely such detail that may need to be covered in guidelines.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the GM crop trials in 2001 and 2002 in Scotland, which were paralleled in England, suffered from an admixture of GM material that was not covered by the consent for the trials? Do the Government have any plans to introduce a more rigorous purity test for genetically modified seed than that which currently operates for conventional seed?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is already substantially greater testing of GM seed than of conventional seed—although at the end of the day, the public health impact may well be the same, so they may therefore have to be tested subject to the same degree of proof and caution. If there were a consent, anyone who breached the terms of that consent would, in certain circumstances, be liable, but we are discussing so many hypothetical questions that any detailed answer to that question must await our verdict on the basis of the advice that we are about to receive.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend accept the advantages of researching GM crops for countries that are not able to grow enough to feed themselves?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it appears that in certain circumstances there may be some advantage in that respect. The economic report which is part of our general consultation on future attitudes towards GM showed that, in certain development circumstances, there could be some advantage, although it was not as great as is sometimes claimed.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, is the committee that is due to report at the end of this month on the GM situation considering the implications, not just for whole crops, but field trial crops also? As the noble Lord knows, last week we talked about the trashing of those crops, and, fortunately, that verdict has been overtaken. However, we have lost the science from Bayer, which has pulled out of field trials, and Monsanto has pulled out of cereals altogether. Is the Minister not concerned that we might lose future science and technology development in this country, which would probably be very regrettable?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is one concern. It is unfortunate that Bayer and Monsanto have taken those decisions. However, it is important to recognise that Monsanto's decision was not related to GM research but a general rationalisation of its European research efforts, most of which was on conventional crops. We are anxious to get better research. Further to the earlier question on development, we are jointly financing research with the Rockefeller Foundation to ascertain better the benefits of GM crops in a development context. If we opt for any planting, in trials or commercially, it needs to be subject to a regime of co-existence.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, Bayer pulled out of its GM crop trials because the Government insisted on releasing the six-figure grid reference, thus it was concerned that its trials would be trashed. In retrospect, do the Government think that that was unwise? Will they consider not always insisting that companies give out the six-figure grid reference in future?

Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. Transparency is an issue. There would be greater public concern, particularly among local farmers, were they not aware that a GM crop was being grown in their area. That would create the exact kind of anxiety that I thought the noble Lord was concerned about in his first Question.

West End Theatre

Lord Harrison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the report of the Theatres Trust on modernising London's West End theatres.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, nobody can deny the cultural and economic importance of the West End theatre. The report by the Theatres Trust does an excellent job of setting out the problems that beset the sector. I understand that the Arts Council is committed to working closely with the Society of London Theatre and the Theatres Trust to explore funding options and discuss the issues.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and the commitment to engage with London theatre entrepreneurs, whose recent investment has helped to maintain a rich architectural heritage, a lively tradition of top-class drama and musicals, and a tourist attraction bringing jobs and prosperity to the capital. Nevertheless, will my noble friend undertake government action in the form of lottery funding, tax concessions or improved planning law to ensure that £250 million is found to upgrade London's commercial theatres, especially their seating and sight lines, public areas and backstage facilities and their ability to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act and modern health and safety laws?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, nobody who has read the Theatres Trust report could fail to be impressed by the physical problems of London theatres in what they offer the public. Nobody who goes to the theatre could fail to be aware of that. I congratulate the Theatres Trust on its report. At the same time, the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, raises the issue that the Government must confront: the only people who could financially assist London theatres are lottery distributors and non-departmental bodies, with which we have an arm's-length relationship. Nevertheless, I intend to meet the Theatres Trust in early January and to visit at least one of its theatres. I am personally committed to seeing that whatever funding can be made available is provided.

Lord Lloyd-Webber: My Lords, obviously, I must declare an interest in West End theatre. A fantastic Question has been asked. Is the Minister aware that the real concern within the West End is not only the fabric of the buildings but that the commercial theatre is not on a level playing field with the public sector? An example is the fact that the entire profit generated by the four playhouses on Shaftesbury Avenue since 1945 is less than was granted for the refurbishment of the Royal Court in the public sector.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, except in exceptional circumstances—for example, where there is access to, and learning about, heritage—the policy of lottery funding bodies is that grants should not be made to commercial buildings as opposed to the subsidised theatre. In that sense there is a distinction between the publicly subsidised theatre and commercial theatre. But that is true of all lottery funding for theatres and for all other purposes.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Theatres Trust and a former member of the board of the Society of London Theatre. As my noble friend pursues his very sympathetic response to the Question, will he bear in mind that the subsidised sector depends quite significantly on the health and well-being of the West End theatres? In support of that, for instance, the National Theatre currently has three shows running in the West End. Historically, the subsidised theatre has provided many products for the West End. I am sure he will agree, therefore, that it is very much in the interest of the subsidised theatre that West End theatres should be well maintained and well managed.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree. I recognise the degree to which subsidised theatre and the commercial theatre support each other—it goes both ways. That is why I am pleased to be able to say, as I did at the outset, that the Arts Council is committed to working closely with the Society of London Theatre and the Theatres Trust.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the report mentions the expectations of theatre-goers. I think that the noble Lord will agree that most regular theatre-goers temper their expectations with moderation, because they are in very old buildings, many of which are listed, and do not have the facilities that we expect today as they were built for a different public. Does he not agree that, if we are to modernise theatres, there ought to be some priorities? Three aspects that bother regular theatre-goers such as me are: lavatories and washrooms, which are in many cases inadequate; facilities for the disabled, which are obviously a difficult matter and need to be dealt with very sensitively; and bars.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I could add to that list. Most theatres were built at a time when the average height of the population of this country was four inches lower than it is now. That has a great effect on seat pitch. Many circle and balcony seats in London theatres have a pitch of 24 inches. I would have thought that 28 inches was an absolute minimum, and a new modern theatre would be built with a pitch of 35 inches. The list could go on.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a considerable theatre architect, Mr Verity, was also responsible for that great sporting icon, the Lord's cricket pavilion, and that that sort of cross-pollination is an outstanding logic for his department?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am always glad to be instructed by the former Secretary of State for National Heritage.

Pakistan High Commission, London

Lord Ahmed: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether recent reports of alleged bugging of the Pakistan High Commission in London are true; and, if so, whether this is a breach of the Vienna convention.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is the long-standing policy of successive governments to neither confirm nor deny allegations concerning the activities of the intelligence and security agencies.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Ahmed: Well, my Lords, her helpful reply. Given that a Sunday newspaper has printed full details of this whole saga, should Her Majesty's Government not say whether the report is true and whether Pakistan is a friend or a foe? If the reports are correct, how will this affect our relations with Pakistan's Government, who have been part of the coalition on the international war against terrorism? Finally, how many British citizens are bugged annually, including Members of Parliament?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my noble friend seeks to tempt me, but I have discovered that I am impervious to temptation. I repeat that it is the long-standing policy of successive governments neither to confirm nor deny any allegations concerning the activities of the intelligence and security agencies. However, I reassure my noble friend that our bilateral relationship with our Pakistani colleagues is both warm and close. We engage at all levels and our multi-faceted relationship has been further strengthened by the initiatives launched by the Prime Minister in 2002 in the judicial, commercial and defence spheres. Resources from DfID to Pakistan have also been enhanced. My noble friend should have no worries at all about the nature of our warm relationship.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that bugging an embassy is very clearly against Articles 22 and 27 of the Vienna convention? Will she also assure us that, if apparently well substantiated allegations emerged suggesting that the British Embassy in a friendly country had been bugged by that friendly country, the British Government would react with the same degree of calm as the Pakistani Government have reacted so far?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in the light of my previous reply, I cannot answer either one way or the other. Nothing would be gained by engaging in a hypothetical debate on whether, if a particular action took place, it would be a breach of the Vienna convention. However, I reassure the noble Lord that the British Government always respond with propriety and moderation.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to remind her of the quotation from Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark:
	"What I tell you three times is true"?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, how well put.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I declare an interest, having been born in Pakistan, in Quetta. If the allegations are true, are they not only a breach of international conventions, but an unfriendly act towards a friendly country?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, without any disrespect to the noble Lord, I say for the fourth time, notwithstanding what was said about saying something three times, which clearly does not work, that we have very respectful and good relations with our colleagues in Pakistan. My noble friend Lord Ahmed mentioned our joint efforts in relation to terrorism. We have warmed to the efforts made by the Pakistani administration. Nothing that I say detracts from that in any way. I would give the same answer notwithstanding from whence it came.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, will my noble friend ensure that our friends in the intelligence services act as efficiently and effectively as possible, and try to avoid leakage of this nature in the future?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I could not possibly comment.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that we have particularly well informed relations with Pakistan?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can confirm that we have very good, robust relations with Pakistan, and long may that be the case.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister's Answer that governments never comment on matters relating to security mean that the security forces can act with impunity in breaching international conventions and, indeed, in so far as Members of Parliament and this House are concerned, in actually breaking the law?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my Answer does not mean that. I cannot accept such a suggestion. The intelligence and security agencies each operate under a strict statutory framework. The agencies are overseen by Ministers and by independent commissioners who hold or have held high judicial office. There is also the independent Investigatory Powers Tribunal to whom anyone may complain if he or she feels aggrieved by something they believe an agency has done in relation to them or their property. Our arrangements are something about which we can be reasonably proud, and they are robust.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, if Ministers are not allowed to say what the security services are for, to take up the second limb of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, how can ordinary British citizens with no connection with terrorism find out whether their lines of communication are being bugged?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have already said that there is the tribunal and there is accountability. We have the legislation passed by this House and another place. The security service operates under the statutory framework established by the Security Service Acts of 1989 and 1996. Your Lordships will know that the services are further regulated by rigorous ministerial oversight. I assure the noble Countess that all that is proper is being done and will continue to be done.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, does the Minister recall the exchange in one of the Buchan novels between Hannay and Leithen in which one says to the other, "Have you seen Sandy lately?" and the other says, "He's in Bombay keeping an eye on central Asia".

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot comment.

North Korea: Nuclear Weapons

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare a non-financial interest as chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the nuclear weapons programme in North Korea, and when they anticipate the resumption of the six-nations talks.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe that North Korea has been pursuing two separate programmes for the production of fissile material, through the enrichment of uranium and the processing of plutonium. We assess that North Korea has sufficient fissile material for one or two nuclear weapons and the technical capability to produce them. The Government fully support the six-party talks process, and hope that a second round of talks will be held within the next few weeks.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Following the visit that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and I made to North Korea six weeks ago, has the Minister had a chance to reflect on the statements that were recorded in the report that we submitted to her from some of the most senior figures in North Korea? They would be prepared to renounce their nuclear programme and submit to a process of verification in return for recognition of their sovereignty and a commitment to peaceful co-existence on the peninsular.
	Does the Minister agree that the way forward to reform and change in North Korea lies through a Helsinki-style process of engagement, rather than military action? Will this issue be discussed this week by her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary while he is in Washington, or next week by the Prime Minister with President Bush when he is in London?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for the report that they sent, and for establishing the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea. Of course, I agree that the right way forward is to do what can be done through the negotiations of the six parties. One of the problems has been, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, that press reports from North Korea have repeatedly tried to make this into a bilateral issue with the United States of America. We do not believe that it is. It is a multilateral issue, because issues about non-proliferation are of very wide concern in the international community.
	The precise agenda for President Bush's visit next week is still under discussion, but I am sure that issues relating to weapons of mass destruction and what can be done to strengthen our position over non-proliferation will be discussed. In that context, I should have thought that North Korea would be bound to feature.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are many urgent problems in North Korea which cannot be fully addressed until there is agreement on the priority process of denuclearisation, which increases the urgency of need for progress on that issue? For example, when the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I were there recently, we were told that in some places it is not even possible to provide the minimum food ration of 600 grammes of rice a day. In some places there is no healthcare provision at all.
	On a slightly more encouraging note, is the Minister aware that aid organisations told us that there is progress by the authorities in access and accountability? Will Her Majesty's Government consider sympathetically proposals from British aid organisations to provide humanitarian relief to ease some of the appalling suffering of many people in that country today?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree. As we discussed in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on 13th March, the problems around the nuclear issue have deflected a great deal of attention from the humanitarian consequences of what is happening in North Korea. I agree with the noble Baroness that there is a whole range of appalling issues; she pinpointed that of malnutrition.
	The main humanitarian donors to North Korea are the United States of America, South Korea and the European Union, which contribute about 9 million dollars a year. We contribute about 20 per cent of that. In addition to that aid through the European Union, DfID has agreed £400,000 to support the Red Cross disaster preparedness programmes. If the noble Baroness wishes to draw my attention to specific projects, I would be very glad to hear from her about them.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does the Minister recall our debate in March when many references were made to religious freedom in North Korea? Is she aware of the recent positive developments that have taken place, such as the opening of a Protestant seminary and the construction of a new Russian Orthodox church? Does she agree that we should do all in our power to encourage and persuade the authorities in North Korea to continue to recognise the need for religious freedom? Does she agree that, if possible, the six-party talks should include a reference to people being able to worship freely?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, indeed, I recall the debate; I also recall that my noble friend Lord Clarke gave us some compelling details about religious persecution. The FCO human rights report for this year outlines our concern about the lack of religious freedom in North Korea. The resolution on the DPRK adopted by the Commission on Human Rights this year also expresses deep concern about the all-pervasive and severe restrictions on freedom of religion in the country. I hope that my noble friend has also focused on those issues, but I agree with him. When we have managed to get further with the six-party discussions, a great deal more attention must be focused on the lack of religious freedom in North Korea.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the remarks of the former Secretary of Defense, William Perry, in the Clinton administration, that this is perhaps the single most dangerous issue about weapons proliferation to be found anywhere in the world? Could she also say whether the six-nation talks will consider the possibility of resuming the supply of light water for reactors that cannot be used to create nuclear weapons? The Minister may recall that the programme was cut off by the present American Administration, which led to a strong sense of crisis in North Korea.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is invidious ever to say that one weapons programme in any part of the world is definitively more dangerous than another weapons programme in another part of the world. The fact is that little by little we have discovered more of what is going on in North Korea. I am bound to point out to the noble Baroness that little by little we have also uncovered quite a lot about what is going on in Iran at the moment. I would not wish to be tempted into a definitive position about which situation is worse.
	Of course, not only is the development of nuclear capability dangerous—both through plutonium and uranium, to which I referred in my initial Answer—but missile capability and the reach of missiles, which we are rather sure now have a reach of anything up to 10,000 miles, are very difficult questions. As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I hope that the issues about the United States of America will be touched on in the forthcoming discussions.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, following the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, does the Minister share my view that the extreme danger of the North Korean nuclear situation is not always fully appreciated? It has now reprocessed its 8,000 spent fuel rods. It has probably got nuclear weapons already, or certainly has enough plutonium to build them. In this agonising situation, can we play the role of honest broker, as our Japanese friends have suggested? Are the reports from Beijing and Sydney this morning that the six-nation talks will definitely go ahead before Christmas right, although Pyongyang is still insisting on certain conditions to be applied? What are those conditions?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we were all encouraged to hear that those participating in the six-nation talks believe that they will go ahead. Again, I hesitate to use the words, "definitely before Christmas". As we all know, a great deal can go wrong in international relations, particularly when there has been the degree of misunderstanding over some aspects of the talks that we have experienced recently. As I said in my initial Answer, we very much hope that the talks will go ahead; we very much support that; and we believe that that is likely to be true.
	As regards the spent fuel rods, there is no hard evidence to suggest that processing has been completed but, obviously, we are concerned about the implications. The processing of spent fuel would serve only to increase the DPRK's isolation from the international community. It simply represents another step in the wrong direction for the DPRK.

Transas Group Bill

Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Iraq: Post-conflict Reconstruction

Baroness Amos: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on progress on reconstruction in Iraq.
	"As honourable Members are all too aware, security is a continuing concern, particularly in and around Baghdad. US forces are bearing the brunt of these attacks, but the UN and international aid agencies are also being targeted. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning the recent bombings of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
	"Of equal concern have been the attacks on the Iraqi people themselves, including the assassination of Aqila al Hashimi—one of only three women members of the governing council—who was shot the day after I met her in Baghdad in September. Regrettably, there have been other victims, including religious and civic leaders, judges and police officers, and ordinary Iraqis caught up in bomb blasts.
	"Those who attack the Red Cross and Iraqis working to rebuild their country are desperate to stop reconstruction happening. We cannot let them succeed. In these circumstances, however, it is understandable and right that the ICRC and the United Nations should review their security procedures and the way they work in Iraq, even if that means temporarily pulling back on some of their operations and pulling out their international staff. We stand ready to help them finance additional security measures, where appropriate, to try and limit the effect on their capacity to help with reconstruction. We will continue to support these agencies, their local staff and NGOs still working in the country.
	"But this is only part of the picture. Political violence is largely concentrated in one part of Iraq—Baghdad and its surrounding areas. The situation in the northern provinces is more stable, and in the south-east region where I visited in September. Security is being maintained by the UK-led multinational division and the local police.
	"For most Iraqis, life is gradually improving. Last month, electricity supply rose above pre-conflict levels for the first time, which has now allowed much-needed maintenance to take place during the cooler months when demand is lower. Food distribution is working, and supplies will continue after the UN Oil for Food programme ends this month.
	"One thousand five hundred schools have been refurbished and 70 million new text books are being distributed. Attendance rates are back to pre-conflict levels. Fuel supply for domestic consumption is meeting demand. Almost all of Iraq's 240 hospitals are now in operation and the routine immunisation of children has resumed. Clean water supplies are improving in much of the country, with sewerage plants being rehabilitated.
	"Forty thousand Iraqi police officers are now on duty. They are being trained and equipped. Criminal justice is being restored, but without the terrible repression that characterised Saddam's regime. Further, 170 newspapers are now on sale in the streets, enabling Iraqis to express their views freely.
	"As well as recognising the enormous contribution of the Iraqi people to these achievements, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the skills and dedicated work of UK forces and of other UK nationals, both in southern Iraq and elsewhere, for their courage and for their determination to help Iraq to rebuild itself.
	"Progress is also being made on the political and constitutional process, with a healthy debate under way on how best to create a genuinely representative system. UN Security Council Resolution 1511 expressed support for this process and asked the UN to strengthen its role as far as circumstances allow. It also asked the governing council to set out by 15th December a timetable for the electoral process.
	"This will provide the context for decisions about the transfer of executive and legislative authority, recognising that the coalition's aim has always been to hand Iraq over to its people as quickly as possible so that they can have control over their own political destiny.
	"Iraq's Ministers, appointed at the beginning of September, are taking increasing responsibility for developing and implementing policies. The governing council has gained growing recognition internationally, including from the Arab League and the United Nations General Assembly. It played a prominent role at the annual meetings of the World Bank and IMF in Dubai, and governing council members and Ministers made their presence felt at the Madrid Donors' Conference at the end of last month.
	"That conference raised pledges of at least 33 billion dollars in grants and soft loans for 2004–07, significantly exceeding expectations. Seventy-three countries participated, underlining the breadth of international support for securing a better future for Iraq.
	"In Madrid, I set out our commitment to reconstruction in Iraq with a pledge of £544 million. This includes the £209 million that DfID has already committed for humanitarian and reconstruction assistance, and £296 million over the next two years. We are considering how best to use this funding to support reconstruction, development and poverty reduction.
	"The pledges raised at Madrid, alongside oil revenues, foreign direct investment and commercial loans, are expected to meet Iraq's investment needs for the next four years. I can also tell the House that agreement has now been reached between the United Nations, the World Bank and the CPA on the terms of reference of the International Advisory and Monitoring Board, which will oversee the use of Iraq's own resources being channelled through the Development Fund for Iraq.
	"The Iraqi people deserve the chance they now have for a better future; they have waited for it long enough. Much remains to be done on security to counter the violence of Saddam's loyalists and others who want to deny the Iraqis this chance, but the best way we can prevent them from succeeding is to continue with reconstruction and political change. As I am sure the House will agree, that is why we must remain committed to the economic and social reconstruction of Iraq and to a better life for its people".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure we are all extremely grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement on post-conflict reconstruction in Iraq, although the very phrase "post-conflict" is, I fear, beginning to look a little ambiguous and stretched. Does she accept that we fully share the way in which the Statement deplores the rocket and grenade attacks and assassinations? Those are attacks not only on the brave troops of the coalition, who are trying themselves to bring peace, but also of course on the Red Cross, the United Nations and other institutions which are trying to help the people of Iraq and are being hindered by terrorism.
	Does she also accept that I join fully in the tribute paid in the Statement to our own soldiers, who continue to show superb courage and resourcefulness in the very difficult conditions under which they have to operate? Does she agree that reconstruction and recovery in Iraq rests not only on outside aid, although clearly that is important, or even on oil revenues, but on mastering the security situation? Once that is done, if it can be done, will not large volumes of international and national capital be ready to flow and businesses to start up? In fact, in many areas outside the Sunni triangle, where all the trouble is focused, the remaining 80 per cent of Iraq is relatively peaceful and business is recovering already. The great trading families of the area are bringing money back in and enterprise is beginning to flourish.
	Would she agree that, meanwhile, the Iraq resistance has now swollen from Ba'athist intelligence officers and disgruntled middle-ranking officials to include hardcore Jihadis, members of the Al'Qaeda franchise and other committed Iraq nationalists and outsiders? Does she further agree that the right response—indeed, the only response—is an increasingly skilled and effective counter-insurgency strategy? Have her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the British Armed Forces had the chance to talk to Pentagon officials about the urgent need for light infantry units, more specialised scout squads that can reach out and strike guerrilla bases, together with an intelligence network akin to something along the lines of the old British Middle East intelligence networks, using both political agents and operatives who can look and speak like the local population? Is it not important to put over the message that that is a better approach for our American allies, who are no doubt doing their best, than cumbersome army formations which can move only by road—thereby asking for trouble—and conduct abortive house raids or, to be frank, go on wild goose chases after elusive weapons of mass destruction?
	Does the noble Baroness agree that a reconstitution of Iraqi security forces, including border guards, civil militiamen and police units, is a very important part of the process? I know that it has started already, but could it not go faster and further—although I can see clearly that a great deal of training over many months will be needed for these forces to make them effective in the new and unfamiliar conditions of terrorism and the need for counter-insurgency operations?
	Even more important, is not the central need to get away from the idea, which is in many Iraqi minds, of the coalition as an occupying power and to ensure that coalition power gradually reduces while Iraqi power gradually takes over? Can we be sure that the Iraqi Governing Council will be strengthened and not weakened, as was hinted in Washington last week? Further, can we be sure that all progress towards a new constitution will be pressed forward as hard as possible?
	Looking back into history, would it not be wise to heed the advice given in 1917 by the British Deputy Commissioner for Basra, who happened to be my great-uncle, after the ejection of the Ottomans? He said that the key to stability and democracy in Mesopotamia lay in adapting existing complex and ancient institutions in the region to new needs; avoiding all suspicion of sectarian partiality; maintaining a strict reputation for justice; pursuing a progressive policy for ample provision of good education and employment; keeping wide open the door for access by local leaders to the new rulers—this was after the Turks had gone—and to disrupting as little as possible the customs, social activities and relationships between ethnic and tribal groups which sew this ancient society together. Will the Minister assure us that, while I fully recognise that much has been achieved and the media reports of violence inevitably give a false impression of progress, Her Majesty's Government will pursue those principles today and encourage our American allies and other coalition forces to adopt them as well?
	We need now not only a carefully worked out humanitarian plan, as was promised, but a carefully worked out security plan as well. At the moment, we are not seeing nearly enough of either.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. On behalf of these Benches, I should like to express our condemnation of the attacks that have occurred in Iraq, including those on the International Red Cross and, today, on the Italian base at Nasiriyah in which 12 Italian soldiers were killed. I also pay tribute to those working on the reconstruction of Iraq from Britain and around the world, including the son of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, who was wounded recently in an attack there.
	However, is the Minister concerned that, as many predicted before the war, the presence of the occupying powers in Iraq is now serving as a focus for attacks, as we have heard? Although I am encouraged by what the noble Baroness said about the progress being made in Iraq as far as ordinary citizens are concerned—which is very welcome—does she not agree that the general security position for the occupying forces and the international agencies, whose aid is absolutely vital, is now getting worse?
	The Government have acknowledged that there was insufficient planning for filling the vacuum caused by the fall of the Iraqi regime. Does the noble Baroness agree that reconstruction needs a concerted effort on the parts of all those involved and, especially, the help of the international community? Does she feel concerned, as we do, about the attitude of the Bush Administration? Can she comment on why Paul Bremer has been recalled to Washington so soon after his last visit, necessitating the cancellation of his meeting in Iraq with the Polish Prime Minister? Does she share with me enormous concern on hearing the Foreign Secretary say this morning on the Today programme that he is,
	"not party to the talks"?
	Can she explain why he is not party to the talks?
	Can the noble Baroness explain what the Coalition Provisional Authority is a coalition of? There is an overwhelming feeling that this is not, and never has been, a coalition of equal partners, or even, perhaps, a coalition at all.
	We now hear rumours that the Americans are considering disbanding the Iraqi Governing Council. What light can the Minister shed on this? Is she aware that yesterday, at a meeting here in Parliament, a member of that governing council, Dr al-Rubaie, stated that they were being rushed because of the deadline of the American elections. He predicted that there was a serious danger of Iraq descending into chaos—of, as he put it, "falling off the cliff" into disaster. If the Iraqi Governing Council is scrapped, how can it come up with a timetable for the transfer of sovereignty and the holding of elections by 15th December, as set out in UNSCR 1511?
	Can the noble Baroness tell the House what efforts are being made to ensure that the reconstruction of Iraq is being done in such a way that it is most effective; that the occupying forces recognise their responsibilities to the Iraqi people; and that the US election timetable is not allowed to dictate events there?
	The Prime Minister said at Questions today that dialogue with the Americans is constant and at every level. Dialogue involves two parties. That his Foreign Secretary is not party to this dialogue at his level of government is surely worrying. The visit by President Bush next week gives an opportunity for dialogue—that is, if any Brits are allowed close to him. Can the Minister assure the House that the need to act together and with the international community in the interests of Iraq will be uppermost in discussions, and that the threats to Syria we have heard recently—which do not help to stabilise the region—will be similarly addressed?
	We note the pledges made in Madrid. Pledges were made in Tokyo for Afghanistan, but a very small amount was delivered. Can the Minister comment on whether the position with Iraq is likely to be better? I note that the EU was not a major contributor at Madrid given the size of its economy. Can she comment on this? Under the circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising that the Government felt they must come up with more.
	Does the noble Baroness agree, however, that it is surprising that some of this extra money has been taken from the poorest people in so-called middle income countries? Does she further agree that both Clare Short and herself said that extra money for Iraq would come from DfID's reserves? That was bad enough, given the unknown contingencies likely to come down the track.
	The Prime Minister pledged on 25th April, in a letter to Christian Aid, that:
	"Funds would not be redirected from programmes supporting poor people elsewhere".
	But it has been made very clear that the decision to redirect money "earlier than had been decided" from other countries to supply the deficit for Iraq was something that the Government had not planned to do before the invasion of Iraq. Can the Minister elaborate on which programmes are going to be cut? Can she assure us that DfID will not lose other battles with the Treasury and the Prime Minister over this?
	What influence is the UK having in preventing the selling of Iraqi assets to foreign ownership prior to Iraqis controlling their own affairs? What influence can the UK bring to bear on this matter?
	Iraq remains extremely volatile. That volatility, and the military presence in the region of the US and the UK, is playing into the hands of terrorist groups. I hope the Minister can assure the House that the focus on the rebuilding of Iraq for the Iraqis will remain uppermost in the minds of those involved there.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for their comments about the role being played by our troops and other personnel. I join with them in their condemnation of the recent attacks we have seen, including the one in Nasiriyah.
	Let me address each point in turn. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred to the difficulty of reconstruction and its dependence on mastering the security situation. I absolutely agree. In fact, the Statement made that point.
	As noble Lords are aware, the resistance in Iraq comes from three different sources. There is a criminal element because Saddam Hussein let so many prisoners out of gaol before the conflict; there are the Ba'athists; and there are those coming into Iraq from outside who represent a range of terrorist organisations.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked about the relationship between the MoD and the Pentagon and the need for ongoing discussions. I can assure the noble Lord that discussions are ongoing.
	As regards the reconstruction of the Iraqi army, we have seen already the formation of two battalions. We also have 40,000 Iraqi police on the streets. Our target is 70,000.
	As to the issue of the authority of Iraqis and the need to strengthen the governing council, the noble Lord will know that we have made it absolutely clear that our focus is on passing authority back to the Iraqis as quickly as possible. We now have Iraqi Ministers and we have the governing council. The Security Council resolution, which makes it absolutely clear that we want to see a plan setting out a programme for Iraq—including a new constitution—is very important indeed.
	On the history, and the quote given by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I totally agree with the noble Lord's great-uncle, although I am not always able to agree with the noble Lord himself.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, also stressed security, particularly the fact that it is becoming more difficult for coalition forces and the international agencies. That is absolutely right. At the same time, it is important to stress that the security situation is getting better for Iraqis, and we need to remember that.
	On the UK not being party to the talks, it is absolutely right that the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority can have talks with the US Administration. I cannot see a problem with that. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is on his way to Washington. He has had endless discussions with his opposite number, Colin Powell, and those discussions will continue. Of course it is a coalition; of course there have to be discussions between the two sides. That is ongoing and it will continue. I cannot quite understand this excitement about the fact that Paul Bremer has gone back to the United States for consultations with the US Government. Why is there a problem with that? I simply do not understand it.
	In conclusion, let me reiterate what UN Security Council Resolution 1511 does in terms of a timetable. It provides a framework around which the whole international community can unite to assist the people of Iraq in building a better future. It confirms the goal of transferring power to the Iraqis as soon as possible, and has requested that the Iraqis produce a timetable for the process in the next two months.

Lord Gilbert: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the need to reconstitute the Iraqi army, a point not touched on by either the Liberal or Conservative spokesmen this afternoon. Can my noble friend give us some idea of the contribution Her Majesty's forces are making to that very worthy and urgent objective?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, our forces have been engaged in working to reform the Iraqi army. This is one of the areas in which we hope there will be a wider international contribution, but we will, of course, continue to play a role.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, several references have been made to the courage of the British forces in Iraq, which I obviously endorse. However, I also commend our forces for the sensitivity with which they have been conducting their operations.
	There has been some talk this afternoon about contact between the Ministry of Defence and the Pentagon and between the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Mr Colin Powell. Can the Minister tell us to whom Mr Bremer reports? The press reported about two weeks ago that authority for operations in Iraq had been removed from Mr Rumsfeld and given to Condoleeza Rice. But surely in the present circumstances, the reconstruction of Iraq is far from being solely a military question—there ought to be far more input of politics. Why is Colin Powell not the authority to whom Mr Bremer reports? I realise that perhaps that is not our business, but can the Minister tell us to whom Mr Bremer reports?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, as he is the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, he reports to both governments. With respect to the role of Condoleeza Rice, she of course gives advice to the President.

Lord Morgan: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked about the economic restructuring of Iraq, which is surely a major cause of the violence in that country. What is happening is illegal. As the Attorney-General advised the Prime Minister last March, it is illegal to have economic reconstruction involving the privatisation of Iraqi assets and the taking over of Iraqi companies against the will of its people by large American companies such as Bechtel and Halliburton. Are the Government putting these points to the American Government? If not, do we not have an illegal occupation following an illegal war, which was shown in The Times poll yesterday to be opposed by two-thirds of the people of this country?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, the war was not illegal. We have made absolutely clear the grounds on which we went to war, and I cannot agree with my noble friend on that.
	With respect to privatisation and Iraq's future, this was agreed by the Iraqi Governing Council, although the order was signed by Paul Bremer. The Iraqi Governing Council was present at the meeting of the World Bank and the IMF in Dubai and it made the announcement about the future of Iraq with respect to its economic assets.

Lord Biffen: My Lords—

Lord Avebury: My Lords—

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, perhaps we could hear from the Conservative Benches and then the Liberal Democrat Benches. There is plenty of time.

Lord Biffen: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with me that it is quite remarkable to have restored the basic services in Iraq on the scale that has been achieved in the relatively limited time, compared with the great difficulties of restoring services in post-war Germany? But does she also agree with me that it is disappointing that there is no seeming enthusiasm, support or acceptance of the presence of the Americans and, to a lesser extent, ourselves, in Iraq, which underlines the very serious long-term problems of eventually securing a strategy for disengagement? Such a strategy certainly does not seem enhanced by the tone of the Americans in respect of Syria.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord about how remarkable it is that basic services have been restored so quickly. What is sometimes forgotten are the years of underinvestment and neglect, which I saw when I visited Iraq earlier this year. We have been trying not just to restore services to their pre-conflict levels but to improve on that because the pre-conflict levels were, to be perfectly frank, not good enough as the resources were not going to the Iraqi people.
	On the acceptance of the coalition forces, I remind noble Lords of the YouGov poll, which shows clearly that support for the coalition forces has gone up from some 75 per cent to some 90 per cent. I do not know whether the noble Lord saw the balanced report on "Newsnight" last night which showed Iraqis talking about the importance of coalition forces staying in Iraq for some period of time.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Baroness has told the House that Mr Paul Bremer reports to both governments. Can she also tell your Lordships on how many occasions Mr Paul Bremer has been to London and when she next expects a visit from him here?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am not able to answer that question—I do not have the figures in my head, but I will happily write to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He will be aware that we have our own representative in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who works very closely with Paul Bremer and who comes back to London on a regular basis. The contact between Paul Bremer, who is reporting to both the US and UK, and Jeremy Greenstock, who is reporting to the UK Government, is very close.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is it not about time that we listened carefully to the case being made by Massoud Barzani, Jalal Talabani, Allawi, Ahmed Chalabi and all the other leading members of the IGC who are all saying that the Americans should, as a matter of urgency, transfer responsibility for security from the CPA to the IGC? I know that is being resisted by Bremer, but is there not now responsibility on the British Government to take more of a brinkmanship position in negotiations with the United States of America and effectively demand that that transfer takes place? If it does not, these people on the IGC are predicting a disaster inside Iraq.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that robust discussions are going on, not only within Iraq and among members of the IGC. It is not surprising that there are differences of opinion, given that those are individuals representing different shades of political opinion in Iraq with respect to Next Steps and the best way forward.
	Our commitment as the coalition is to transfer authority across a wide range of themes and issues as quickly as possible. Of course, there are UN security resolutions that give us the context in which we are debating that. In that context, there is also an ongoing discussion between the IGC, the CPA, our Government, the United States Government and the UN about how we can best deliver that.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, while the main battles—

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, perhaps we could hear from the Cross Benches.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, while the main battles were still continuing, Members of both Houses of Parliament insisted on the importance of effective Arabic language policing on the disarmament of civilians and the reconstruction of the institutions of justice. Can the Minister confirm that those points have been fully borne out by subsequent events?
	As regards the 80 per cent of Iraq where relative order and calm prevail, are local elections in cities and municipalities under consideration and planning?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord's final point about local elections, I assure him that the discussions currently taking place in the IGC encompass a whole range of different possibilities.
	On his earlier point about Arabic language policing and disarmament, he may be aware that the police training facility is being established in Jordan. On the disarmament point, there is the difficulty of disarming the criminal elements who were let out of prison by Saddam Hussein, as against working to disarm and work to a new kind of Iraqi police force and army as part of the wider security sector reform process.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is obvious that a great deal of good work has been done and is going on. However, what has been brought out today is without a doubt the nigger in the woodpile—if such an expression is allowed any more. What has been brought out is that security is the essential point. Can the Minister give us any indication that would back up her statement that security is improving? For example, some of the worst things to have happened are the attacks on the oil pipelines. Is that still going on, or have they got it under control? That would be a sign that security is improving.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that I made it clear in a previous answer that we feel that the security situation for Iraqis is improving, although our forces and international agencies remain very vulnerable indeed. When my noble friend Lady Symons visited Iraq, she reported that the women to whom she spoke said that there were far fewer attacks on women and girls, for example. Other ministerial colleagues who have visited Iraq more recently than I have, have also commented on the fact that Iraqis themselves have talked about an improving security situation, but we are in no way complacent.
	Improving the security situation remains our overriding consideration—to improve the security environment for our forces and for those others in the Coalition Provisional Authority and working with international agencies, and for Iraqis themselves. That will enable a faster pace for reconstruction.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, is it not dismaying that we read so much to suggest that British advice is not being given its proper weight by our American partners in the coalition? Are Her Majesty's Government entirely satisfied that those reports are without foundation? Is it not extremely important that nothing should be done to exacerbate such an impression, right or wrong?
	I appreciate that the Minister probably cannot go further than she has today about this business of Mr Bremer being consulted by the Americans alone, without the Foreign Secretary being present. Would she accept that, in those circumstances, the absence of the Foreign Secretary gives a very unfortunate impression?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I cannot accept that, because there have been a number of occasions when Paul Bremer has gone back to the United States for consultation with the US Administration, and there have been occasions when Paul Bremer has had consultations with our Prime Minister. There has never been a problem about that.
	As I said, my right honourable friend Jack Straw is on his way to Washington now. That has been planned for some time and, of course, Iraq will be one of the subjects discussed, but there will be others. There is ongoing discussion between ourselves and the US Government at a number of different levels on the issue. I can think of no other way in which to reassure noble Lords on that point.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, can I thank the Minister for placing on record the vast amount of reconstruction that is taking place in Iraq? Will she also take the opportunity to dispel the notion that the security that underpins the reconstruction is really only a two-horse exercise? Will she confirm that 11 of our NATO partners and that six of the seven candidate members have troops in Iraq?
	Does the Minister also agree that it is quite remarkable that almost all the 240 hospitals and more than 1,200 clinics are now working, and that with the help of UNICEF we have managed to produce 22 million doses of vaccines, allowing us to vaccinate 4.2 million children? Is that not absolutely crucial?
	Finally, is the Minister aware that, late last night, at a meeting of NATO parliamentarians in the United States, with only one member out of several hundred voting against, parliamentarians from all the NATO parliaments endorsed the reconstruction plans, and emphasised that it is not a question of if we succeed but when we succeed?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. There are already forces from more than 30 nations on the ground in Iraq. That is certainly a multinational stabilisation force. Again, my noble friend is right with respect to the progress that we have made in relation to reconstruction. Not only are the hospitals and clinics back up and running, but we have had great success with the immunisation programme.
	Much remains to be done and we shall continue to work on the reconstruction effort, but it is very important that we acknowledge the progress that has already been made.

Lord Sandberg: My Lords, the Minister has had too many questions to answer, but one question that she has not touched on relates to the possible problems in Syria. It worries me when one reads statements saying, "Let's have a crack at Syria next, or Iran". I do not believe that I need to remind the Minister that the relatively new President of Syria was educated in this country, as was his wife. I hope that Washington, when it considers that country, looks to us first, as I am sure that we would be more able to do more good in that respect than Washington would by going on its own.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that we have worked very hard at establishing relations with Syria. In fact, last year, I think, or earlier this year, we received a visit from the President of Syria, and that remains the position.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is part of the job of the UN special representative to facilitate political dialogue and that there is still a vacuum in that respect? Who is actually carrying out the job which requires very special skills of fostering political dialogue and, presumably, dealing with the coalition?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is quite right. The UN had a particularly important role in facilitating political dialogue in Iraq. The current situation with the UN and the fact that the majority of the UN's international staff are no longer based in Iraq makes the day-to-day relationship in this respect more difficult. However, there is ongoing work on facilitating political dialogue in Iraq.

Lord Chan: My Lords, with this encouraging report of the reconstruction of Iraq irrespective of the security situation, will the noble Baroness tell us what is being done to encourage local Iraqis and Iraqis abroad to return to Iraq to assist in the reconstruction? As she said, some 80 per cent of the population of the country is in a state of relative peace and the locals are the best people to maintain the reconstruction.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chan. It is important that it is the Iraqis themselves who are doing a great deal of the work in the reconstruction effort. Certainly it is the local staff who are carrying out the work that UNICEF, other UN agencies and the Red Cross are continuing to do in Iraq. There has been an ongoing discussion about a phased programme of returnees to Iraq, and that is being looked at. Obviously there is some nervousness among those outside the country about the security situation inside the country. However, I can assure the noble Lord that that is being looked at.

Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer that the Commons amendments be now considered.
	Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

[The page and line references are to Bill 112 as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

1 Clause 3, page 2, line 40, leave out "shall" and insert "may"
	2 Clause 4, page 3, line 17, leave out "Subject to subsection (7),"
	3 Clause 4, page 3, line 29, leave out from "Chancellor" to second "the" in line 34 and insert "must have regard to the desirability of specifying areas which are the same as—
	(a) the police areas listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (division of England and Wales, except London, into police areas), and
	(b) the area consisting of"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 en bloc.
	Amendment No. 1 is necessary to clarify the position following an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and adopted by the House on Report. It was concerned with ensuring that the Lord Chancellor should not have a discretion to choose to make no provision for accommodation and therefore changed the wording from "may provide" to "shall provide". Although I am chancing my arm, I am hopeful that the noble Baroness is now satisfied that the Government's explanation is adequate in this respect. I shall therefore not speak at great length.
	In essence, the Bill makes it clear that the Lord Chancellor is already under the necessary duty which the noble Baroness sought to ensure. The general duty under Clause 1(1) provides that the Lord Chancellor must provide an efficient and effective court system. I am happy to confirm that that must include matters such as accommodation. Clause 3 deals with the Lord Chancellor's powers which derive from this general duty.
	Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 make minor drafting changes to the amendments that were previously tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, at Third Reading and accepted by this House and by the Government.
	Amendment No. 21 makes a drafting change to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and accepted by this House. The Government do not intend, nor have we sought, to overturn that amendment.
	I hope that these amendments will set the tone of our debate on our further consideration of the Bill. The Government have genuinely considered and respected the views of the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3.—(Lord Filkin.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I can indeed confirm that that has set the tone for our consideration of the Amendments to the Lords Amendments to the Bill. On Amendment No. 1, I signal that on this occasion I accept the Government's rejection of my amendment. I accept the Minister's reassurances that the principle which I tried to achieve by the amendment is already satisfactorily incorporated in the Bill's drafting. I also thank him for his courtesy in writing to me when the amendment was introduced in another place, to ensure that I was fully informed of the Government's position. I felt that the further explanation in another place was enough to satisfy me that I would not need to object to the overturning on Amendment No. 1.
	On Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, I agree with the Minister that these drafting changes make better clarification of a matter that was won on Division with regard to the coterminosity—a ghastly word, but we all knew at the time what it meant—of the courts boards with the 42 criminal justice areas. I agree that the government drafting today gives a better flexibility, so that they may properly meet all the requirements that the boards will need to meet when those boundaries are so fixed.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

4 Clause 17, page 9, line 8, leave out paragraph (c)

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
	The amendment deals with subsection (5)(c) of Clause 17, which would allow rules to disenfranchise lay justices who have only recently been appointed to a local justice area by preventing them voting in contested elections for a local chairman or deputy chairman. The Liberal Democrats raised this point in Committee in the other place.
	It is not the Government's intention to prevent any justices in a local justice area partaking in the full range of their duties. The current rules do not make use of the power to limit the justices' electorate, even though they have done in the past. Commons Amendment No. 4 was drafted to meet their concerns by deleting subsection (5)(c).
	Amendment No. 7 restores to Clause 41 a subsection that was removed at Lords Third Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who moved this amendment, expressed concern as to the compatibility of this section with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I think it would be fair to say that that issue was well probed in Committee and in subsequent stages. I seek merely to put as fairly and fully as I can why we think that the current wording of the clause is correct.
	Clearly, the starting point must be that magistrates who are members of local authorities should not sit on a case involving a local authority. That should be abundantly clear to magistrates and to the justices' clerk. In the overwhelming majority of cases it will be obvious to everyone that a magistrate should not sit, and they would therefore not seek to do so. We are merely catering for perhaps extremely rare situations in which disqualification may not be immediately obvious and a magistrate sits in error. That happens very rarely indeed. When it happens, it will almost always be obvious whether or not the decision should be invalidated.
	Although a matter for the courts, if a tribunal which included a disqualified person made a decision in favour of the local authority, that decision would almost certainly be flawed on Article 6 grounds and would probably automatically be struck down. I use my words conditionally only to avoid presuming the court's position. I think that the position in fact is very clear indeed. In other words, the amendment does not preclude the application of other grounds for invalidating the decisions, such as actual bias, apparent bias or an interest in the case. I think that that is quite properly the heart of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The wording is not meant to indicate that in such situations the decision would not be struck down.
	We believe that it is important—perhaps not the most important issue of the Bill—to make this amendment because it caters for a small number of cases where a disqualified person sat on a panel by error (most likely in an interim hearing, a procedural matter), but the decision was not questioned by either of the parties. Where no prejudice is caused by the magistrate's disqualification, it would be unreasonable, burdensome and a waste of time both to the court and the parties, to invalidate these decisions merely because the magistrate had sat when it was clearly preferable that he had not done so. That is all that the issue is about. It does not seek in any sense to take away the natural justice of a defendant in a case where it would appear that there was bias to him as a consequence of a decision.
	I turn to Amendment No. 8 to Clause 42. This clause validates the appointment of 23 foreign nationals recruited as magistrates prior to 31st January 2002 and authenticates all acts carried out by them during their time in office.
	The government amendment tabled in the other place removes the restrictions imposed by the Act in relation to the future appointment of lay magistrates. The Government are fully committed to appointing magistrates who represent the communities they serve. This amendment was made in response to one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to which we were sympathetic. It will allow the Lord Chancellor to appoint lay magistrates who are able and willing to serve, regardless of their original nationality.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Filkin.)

Lord Renton: My Lords, I have some difficulty with this matter. We are discussing Amendment No. 4, and with it we are asked to consider Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. Amendment No. 7 states:
	"No act is invalidated merely because of the disqualification under this section of the person by whom it is done".
	However, that seems to contradict subsection (1) of Clause 41 which states:
	"A lay justice who is a member of a local authority may not act as a member of the Crown Court or a magistrates' court in proceedings brought by or against, or by way of an appeal from a decision of—
	(a) that local authority"
	and so on. Will the noble Lord explain why, given that this disqualification of lay justices is so described at the beginning of Clause 41, it will nevertheless be enacted that no act will be invalidated because of the disqualification? I find that a contradiction.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the three amendments that we are discussing which have been grouped have nothing in common apart from the fact that they originate either from these Benches or from my honourable friends in another place. However, two of them are concessions or amendments accepted by the Government, which I am very pleased to see. That applies to Amendment No. 4, which originated from the Liberal Democrat Benches in the other place, and to Amendment No. 8, which comprises a matter I raised in your Lordships' House.
	As regards the date of 31st January 2002, I believe that it was only at that point that the Government appreciated that the Act of Settlement prevented the appointment of lay justices who were not of British birth or born within the United Kingdom or the British dominions.
	There is no question that a number of people who do not qualify under the Act of Settlement have in the past made useful contributions as magistrates, and more will be able to do so in the future. Therefore, I am glad to welcome the relevant measure. Originally, I was worried that the measure applied not only to magistrates but also to judges, in which case it would have had some rather startling effects. In particular, a very distinguished judge, a member of the Court of Appeal, would have been disqualified under the Act of Settlement if it had not been amended so as not to apply to the appointment of members of the judiciary. It seems very odd that that judge can sit as a member of the Court of Appeal but would not have been eligible to be appointed as a magistrate. As I say, I very much welcome the measure.
	I am disappointed with Amendment No. 7. It will more or less inevitably be the case that a magistrates' Bench which includes a magistrate who is a member of a local authority cannot constitute an impartial and independent tribunal, as required by Article 6 of the European Convention, when hearing a case to which the local authority or one of its officers is a party. The Government's argument that there may be cases in which a decision is taken in favour of the other party to the case—or it may be something no one wants to bother to set aside—is unimportant, because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, pointed out when this matter was first raised in Committee, the effect of a disqualified person sitting as a member of the Bench would not be that the decision was automatically invalid but only that it was voidable if it was challenged. As regards a party in whose favour the decision was given, or an interlocutory decision on some procedural matter which no one wants to start all over again, the decision would be left to stand. In those circumstances I am disappointed that the Government have not taken this point on board.
	Having said that, I recognise that this is not by any means the most important change that was made to the Bill during its passage through the two Houses. It is therefore not one that I should wish to take any further or on which I seek to take the opinion of the House.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I intervene briefly in order to thank the noble and learned Lord the former Lord Chancellor, to whom I wrote about a friend of mine who had been all the way through the procedures for becoming a magistrate and was on the point of being appointed when it was realised that the Act of Settlement debarred citizens of the European Union from being appointed magistrates. The noble and learned Lord considered sympathetically the case that I put to him on behalf of my friend. Ultimately she became a magistrate. The noble and learned Lord may be pleased to hear that she now adjudicates on cases having lived in this country for 26 years. My only surprise is that, given that the Act of Settlement has been on the statute book for some 200 years, it was discovered only very belatedly that it debarred citizens of the European Union from being appointed magistrates. I am very glad that my friend, and I believe 20 or 30 others in a similar position, have now been through all the hoops and are now helping to ensure that justice is done in our courts.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and compliment him, not for the first time, on his advocacy and vigilance in championing individual rights. I am glad that on this occasion at least we were able to satisfy him. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for accepting with good grace that we do not on this occasion agree with him exactly as regards the relevant measure. The issue was well tilled in Committee and subsequently.
	The noble Lord, Lord Renton, as ever, is absolutely right to say that Clause 41 makes it clear that local authority members sitting on a magistrates' Bench should not take part in a case which involves a local authority. However, our amendment addresses certain very narrow circumstances. Although in very many cases such a decision would be automatically struck down, there are occasions where no offence to justice arises. I referred to a procedural matter in that regard. We seek not to abandon procedural common sense in pursuit of the greater remedy of not allowing local authority members to take part in substantive hearings where they might be considered to have found in favour of a local authority. There would then be a real appearance of bias, even if there had not been bias. I am at risk of repeating what I said earlier, but I hope that that clarifies the situation.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

5 Clause 36, page 17, line 12, after "2(1)" insert "or provided under a contract made by virtue of section 2(4)"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. In doing so, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 12 to 14, 16 to 18, 22 to 26 and 28. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 24A to 24C, which amend Amendment No. 24, and to Amendment No. 24D, which amends Clause 106.
	The amendments deal with the collection of fines by fines officers and the discharge of fines by unpaid work. Taken together, they replace the existing Schedule 3 with a new one which allows wider use of attachments of earnings and deductions from benefits within the fines collection regime. They also introduce a new schedule to give effect to the Government's proposals on the discharge of fines by unpaid work. My noble friend Lady Scotland gave early warning of the amendments on 8th May on Report. They were tabled prior to Committee in another place, and comprise the addition of two new clauses, a complete revision of the former Schedule 3, and a new schedule on fines payment work.
	The amendments add to the fine enforcement scheme by making wider use of attachments of earnings and deductions from benefits, particularly for offenders who are in default on other financial penalties. They also create a new offence, penalising those who fail to provide means information and/or the financial details necessary to allow an attachment of earnings or deduction from benefits order to be made.
	We also introduced a new schedule, amending the Bill to allow the courts to impose a period of unpaid work instead of a fine when the fine cannot be collected by any recognised means. In addition, we introduced Amendment No. 5, which would enable the role of the fines officer to be contracted out. The Government have decided that to radically improve the collections of fines, which is clearly necessary, we should not rule that out as an option in the future, should circumstances appear to justify it. In such a situation, we would contract out only in the interests of better fines collection, and subject to the appropriate restrictions and controls.
	Any arrangements for such contracting out will be subject to the existing prohibition on contracting-out functions which involve a judicial decision or discretion. They are also subject to the same safeguards as exist in the Court Service, which we introduced by amendment on Report in the Lords. Those safeguards are that the work to be eligible for contracting out must be specified in an order, and the senior judiciary must be consulted on the terms of that order.
	Amendments Nos. 6, 14, 17 and 18 deal with the piloting arrangements for the proposals. Those are important measures, but they are clearly experimental. It is sensible that, before they are introduced at large, there is provision and capacity for piloting them. The amendments will enable both the schedules to be piloted in specified local justice areas, and enable different elements of the package to be piloted in different areas.
	The wider use of attachments of earnings orders and deductions from benefits, together with the new offence for non-provision of means information, will be piloted nationally. A combination of other variations of the new measures will be piloted locally in Cambridgeshire, Cumbria, Devon and Cornwall, and South Yorkshire, with the full scheme being piloted in Cheshire and Gloucestershire. That approach will enable the Government to bring forward a package of tried and tested measures, which we can be sure will deliver the improvements in performance that all members of this House want to see.
	The first items in Amendment No. 24 make drafting amendments only. Its second part is that the Government have accepted the recommendations in paragraph 4 of the 26th report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers. The amendment therefore changes the status of regulations governing the fine-to-work conversion rate, making them subject to affirmative resolution before both Houses.
	Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 28 make minor and consequential amendments to the provisions governing fine collection and the discharge of fines by unpaid work.
	I apologise for the length of my comments, but I hope that it helps subsequent brevity. I commend the said Commons amendments to the House.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Lord Filkin.)

Lord Renton: My Lords, I greatly welcome Amendment No. 6, because getting rid of Clause 36(2) to (8) is really good riddance.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I would be less than frank if I were to say that the amendments met with full-hearted support on these Benches. We are less than entirely happy with a number of aspects of them. I note that the original schedule has now been replaced by one that has increased in size from 25 paragraphs to 53 paragraphs. It is of very considerable length, which adds to the quantity of statutory material now being churned out.
	I am sorry that the Government have not taken on board a point that I raised at an earlier stage about the problems with imposing strict time limits on action that can be taken by someone who is required to pay a fine, who in a number of circumstances has to take action by way of appeal, for example, within 10 days. Rigid time limits with no possibility of extension are a notable cause of injustice. However, that matter was fully ventilated at that earlier stage.
	We are unhappy with the system of deduction from benefits, because of fears not only that it may have an impact on the person drawing the benefits but, where that person is in a family relationship and children are involved, it may adversely affect the children. When the Government undertake their piloting schemes, I hope that one issue that they will look at is the impact that deductions from benefits appear to have on other members of the household of the person who would otherwise be entitled to those benefits.
	We are also concerned in principle that something as close to a judicial function as the fines officer is capable of being contracted out. Although we would not seek to delay the matter any further, we are concerned about it and hope that our concerns will be looked at carefully within the piloting period.
	Paragraph 22 of the proposed new schedule on collection of fines states that no application may be made by the person subject to the fine for a variation of the payment terms unless there has been a material change in that person's circumstances since the last collection was made, or that person is making further information about their circumstances available. No such restriction was included on the making of an application in the original version of the schedule. Can the Minister give any explanation of why that change was introduced? The same point arises in connection with paragraphs 31 and 36 of the new schedule.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am delighted to get the support of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on at least one aspect of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, rightly comments that sometimes our processes lead to Bills getting longer rather than shorter, which is not always a sin.
	The impact on the dependants of someone who has been convicted of an offence is a central and difficult problem of a justice system. Sending someone to prison clearly affects their dependants and family. Nevertheless, I shall ask officials to reflect on the point made. If it is possible to consider that as part of the monitoring, we shall seek to do so, but I cannot give a total commitment without knowing exactly what is happening.
	We would not be rushing contracting out either. We are not seeking to go back to 17th century France in any respect whatever.
	Since inspiration is coming to me rather slowly this afternoon, I shall have to answer the noble Lord's last point subsequently if he will bear with that.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

6 Page 17, line 14, leave out subsections (2) to (8)
	7 Clause 41, page 20, line 27, at end insert— "( ) No act is invalidated merely because of the disqualification under this section of the person by whom it is done."
	8 Clause 42, page 21, line 1, leave out "before 31st January 2002" and insert ", whether made before or after the passing of this Act,"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 to 8.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 to 8.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

9 Clause 92, page 44, line 30, leave out subsection (2)
	10 Page 44, line 35, at end insert— "( ) When including any provision in an order under this section, the Lord Chancellor must have regard to the principle that access to the courts must not be denied."
	11 Page 45, line 16, leave out subsection (11)

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 to 11. The amendments concern access to justice and court fees, which is an issue that received considerable consideration in the early stages of the Bill.
	Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 accept the principle of an amendment which was passed during the Lords passage of the Bill. An amendment was passed in Committee which would make it a statutory requirement that the Lord Chancellor should have regard to the need to facilitate access to justice when prescribing fees. The Government have listened to those concerns. After careful consideration, we have concluded that even though subsection (2) is not strictly necessary, the effect of the provision should be included.
	Amendment No. 9 removes the original Lords amendment. Amendment No. 10, the Government's proposal, will ensure that the Lord Chancellor must have regard to the principle that access to the courts must be not be denied when including any provision in an order under that clause. For the first time, that will place the common law position, established by Witham, on a statutory footing.
	In addition, the Court of Appeal in Witham has already confirmed that a citizen has a constitutional right of access, although not a right of free access, to the courts. A system of exemptions, remissions and reductions already exists under the current fee-setting powers to achieve that for less well-off litigants.
	If the House agrees with the amendments, the regime for setting courts fees will be much stronger and clearer and have a statutory basis in principles for the first time. Clause 92 includes, also for the first time, an express power to exempt or remit fees. That, along with a new fees order, will be subject to wide consultation with the heads of division and, for the first time, the head and deputy head of civil justice and, for civil proceedings, the Civil Justice Council. It will also, for the first time, be subject to parliamentary scrutiny by way of the negative resolution procedure.
	Amendment No. 11 removes an amendment that was added in this House, which would prevent judicial salaries being taken into account when setting fees. After much consideration, we are firmly of the view that that would be an undesirable obstacle to the Lord Chancellor's powers in exercising his ministerial responsibilities. I am afraid that we cannot accept it.
	The Government's policy is to recover the full cost of services provided, including judicial salaries, based on the general principle that parties are expected to pay the cost of that part of the civil justice system that they are using to resolve their dispute. The general policy of recovering most of the costs of the courts through fees ensures the best targeting of scarce public resources. Those are properly public expenditure decisions for government.
	The Government's policy on setting fees and charges is set out in the Treasury's fees and charges guide. That explains that fees should be set to recover the full cost, subject to any agreed subsidies. The provision would provide a subsidy for all types of cases. The Government consider that an approach that closely targets those in need by way of the system of exemptions, remissions and subsidies is a more cost-effective way of ensuring access to justice.
	I shall not go into much greater detail. I should also point out that the recovery of judicial salaries as part of the objective of policy was introduced by the Conservative Party in 1992. We believe that they were correct in that. I shall not upset the House by indicating the scale of loss of income that would follow from that. I shall merely indicate that that would not be seen by the Government as a trivial issue. For reasons both of principle and of the Government's right to protect their income sources, I hope that the House will understand why we are resistant to that amendment, if not to the others in the group.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 to 11.—(Lord Filkin.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, since the amendments were tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, it is perhaps appropriate that I should respond first and make clear that although there was of course some disappointment that the Government were going to overturn our position on judicial fees in Amendment No. 11, we have made our view sufficiently clear on previous occasions and it would not be appropriate to press the matter further. At the same time, I would welcome Amendment No. 10, which properly reflects our objective in tabling the amendments on access which this House passed in a Division. We accept the point made by the Minister, Mr Leslie, in another place that our Amendment No. 9, which the Government overturned, was too narrowly drafted and was in the wrong place. I therefore welcome the Government's new amendment.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

12 Clause 95, page 46, line 42, at end insert— "( ) Amend section 20A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53) (false statements as to financial circumstances) as follows.
	( ) After subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) A person who is charged with an offence who fails to furnish a statement of his financial circumstances in response to an official request shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale."
	( ) In subsection (2)(b), after "may impose" insert "and how it should be paid"."
	13 After Clause 95, Insert the following new Clause— "Recovery of fines etc. by deductions from income support: failure to provide information
	(1) Amend section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53) (power to make regulations about recovery of fines etc. by deductions from income support) as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2), after paragraph (a) insert—
	(aa) provision that the court may require the offender to provide prescribed information in connection with an application;". (3) After subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) An offender who fails to provide information required by the court by virtue of subsection (2)(aa) commits an offence.
	(2B) An offender commits an offence if, in providing information required by the court by virtue of that subsection, he—
	(a) makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular,
	(b) recklessly provides a statement which is false in a material particular, or
	(c) knowingly fails to disclose any material fact. (2C) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2A) or (2B) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale."
	14 After Clause 95, Insert the following new Clause— "Collection of fines and discharge of fines by unpaid work
	(1) Schedule (Collection of fines) contains provisions about the collection of fines.
	(2) Schedule (Discharge of fines by unpaid work) contains provisions about the discharge of fines by means of unpaid work.
	(3) Subsections (4) to (9) apply in relation to each of those Schedules.
	(4) The Schedule is to have effect only in accordance with—
	(a) subsections (5) and (6) (pilot schemes), or
	(b) subsections (7) to (9) (power to make pilot schemes, or modified versions of pilot schemes, permanent after completion of pilots). (5) The Lord Chancellor may by order provide that the Schedule is to have effect in relation to the local justice area or areas specified in the order for the period specified in the order.
	(6) An order under subsection (5) may make provision modifying the Schedule, or any enactment in connection with the operation of the Schedule, in relation to the specified local justice area or areas and the specified period.
	(7) The Lord Chancellor may, at the end of the relevant period, by order provide that the Schedule is to have effect—
	(a) in all local justice areas, and
	(b) indefinitely. (8) "The relevant period" means—
	(a) if one order has been made under subsection (5) in relation to the Schedule, the period specified in the order;
	(b) if more than one order has been made under subsection (5) in relation to the Schedule, the period which, out of the periods so specified, ends at the latest date. (9) An order under subsection (7) may make such amendments of—
	(a) the Schedule, and
	(b) any other enactments, as appear to the Lord Chancellor appropriate in the light of the operation of the Schedule in accordance with the order made under subsection (5) (pilot schemes)."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 to 14.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 to 14—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

15 Clause 101, page 55, line 23, leave out subsection (3) and insert— "(3) For subsection (1) substitute—
	"(1) The Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, may appoint as Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court a person who is—
	(a) a solicitor of the Supreme Court of at least 7 years' standing, or
	(b) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland of at least 7 years' standing.""

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15. The amendment was tabled in Committee in the Commons by the honourable Member for Surrey Heath and was withdrawn for technical reasons. It was subsequently tabled again on Report in the Commons, during which it was welcomed. The amendment would allow barristers as well as solicitors to be appointed as the Official Solicitor of Northern Ireland and would bring the eligibility criteria for that post in line with those for the Official Solicitor in England and Wales. For those reasons, we are happy to support the amendment as proposed, but subsequently developed.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

16 Clause 105, page 57, leave out lines 19 and 20
	17 Clause 106, page 58, line 11, leave out paragraph (c)
	18 Page 58, line 18, at end insert—
	"( ) an order under section (Collection of fines and discharge of fines by unpaid work)(7) to (9) (power to make permanent provision about collection of fines and discharge of fines by unpaid work);"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 18.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 18.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

19 Clause 107, page 58, line 39, at end insert— "( ) Schedule (Transitional provisions and savings) contains transitional provisions and savings."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 27, 29 and 30 to Clause 107 and Schedules 7 and 8, with the introduction of a new schedule for transitional provisions and savings. I shall not go into the detail of the amendments. They are all minor, technical and consequential amendments, though I would be happy to elaborate further should the House wish me to do so.
	Amendment No. 29 would introduce a schedule that includes a provision in the statute that local justice areas introduced in the Bill have the same boundaries as petty sessions areas. That meets a commitment made during the passage of the Bill through this House.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

20 Clause 110, page 59, line 28, leave out subsection (2)
	21 Schedule 1, page 60, line 9, leave out "who are" and insert ", each of whom is"
	22 Schedule 3, page 66, line 1, leave out Schedule 3
	23 After Schedule 5, Insert the following new Schedule— "Collection of fines
	Part 1
	Introductory

Application of Schedule

1 (1) This Schedule applies if a person aged 18 or over ("P") is liable to pay a sum which—
	(a) consists of or includes a fine, and
	(b) is or is treated for the purposes of Part 3 of the 1980 Act as a sum adjudged to be paid by conviction of a magistrates' court.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(a) "fine" does not include any pecuniary forfeiture or pecuniary compensation payable on conviction.

Meaning of "the sum due"

2 In this Schedule "the sum due" means the sum adjudged to be paid as mentioned in paragraph 1(1).

Meaning of "existing defaulter" etc.

3 (1) For the purposes of this Schedule, P is an existing defaulter if it is shown that—
	(a) he was required to pay the sum due immediately but failed to do so,
	(b) the sum due or any other sum is registered for enforcement against him as a fine under—
	(i) section 71 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53),
	(ii) section 9 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c. 16), or
	(iii) any other enactment specified in fines collection regulations,
	(c) he is in default on a collection order in respect of another sum falling within paragraph 1(1), or
	(d) he is in default in payment of another sum falling within paragraph 1(1) but in respect of which no collection order has been made.
	(2) For the purposes of this Schedule, P's existing default can be disregarded only if he shows that there was an adequate reason for it.
	(3) Sub-paragraph (2) is subject to sub-paragraph (4).
	(4) Where a sum is registered for enforcement against P as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), P's existing default is not one which can be disregarded for the purposes of the following provisions of this Schedule.
	(5) In sub-paragraph (1)(a) "immediately" means, where P is informed of his liability to pay the sum due in a notice, within the period specified in the notice.
	(6) The period so specified must be a period which—
	(a) is not longer than 10 working days, and
	(b) begins with the date of the notice.
	(7) "Collection order" means an order made under Part 4 of this Schedule. Part 2
	Immediate payment of fines: discounts

Application of Part

4 This Part applies if the court which is imposing the liability to pay the sum due concludes—
	(a) that P should be required to pay the sum due immediately, and
	(b) that he is not an existing defaulter or, if he is, that his existing default (or defaults) can be disregarded.

Court's duty in relation to discount

5 The court must make an order—
	(a) stating its conclusions on the matters referred to in paragraph 4(b),
	(b) stating the amount of the sum due, the amount of the fine and the amount of any other part of the sum due, and
	(c) informing P of the effect of paragraph 6.

The discount

6 (1) P is allowed a discount on the fine if the sum due, less the amount of the discount, is paid in accordance with the terms of the order.
	(2) The amount of the discount is to be determined in accordance with fines collection regulations, but must not be greater than 50% of the fine.
	(3) The discount is given effect by extinguishing P's liability to pay the part of the sum due that is equal to the amount of the discount. Part 3
	Attachment of earnings orders and applications for benefit deductions

Application of Part

7 (1) This Part applies if—
	(a) the court which is imposing the liability to pay the sum due concludes that P should not be required to pay the sum due immediately, or
	(b) P was required to pay the sum due immediately but failed to do so.
	(2) In the following provisions of this Part, "the relevant court" means—
	(a) the court which is imposing the liability to pay the sum due, or
	(b) if sub-paragraph (1)(b) applies, the magistrates' court responsible for enforcing payment of the sum due.

Attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions without P's consent

8 (1) This paragraph applies if the relevant court concludes that P is an existing defaulter and that his existing default (or defaults) cannot be disregarded.
	(2) The court must make an attachment of earnings order if it appears to the court—
	(a) that P is in employment, and
	(b) that it is not impracticable or inappropriate to make the order.
	(3) The court must make an application for benefit deductions if it appears to the court—
	(a) that P is entitled to a relevant benefit, and
	(b) that it is not impracticable or inappropriate to make the application.
	(4) If it appears to the court that (apart from this sub-paragraph) both sub-paragraph (2) and sub-paragraph (3) would apply, the court must make either an attachment of earnings order or an application for benefit deductions.

Attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions with P's consent

9 (1) This paragraph applies if the relevant court concludes that P is not an existing defaulter or, if he is, that his existing default (or defaults) can be disregarded.
	(2) The court may make—
	(a) an attachment of earnings order, or
	(b) an application for benefit deductions,
	if P consents.

Meaning of "relevant benefit" and "application for benefit deductions"

10 In this Schedule—
	(a) "relevant benefit" means a benefit from which the Secretary of State may make deductions by virtue of section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53) (recovery of fines etc. by deductions from income support etc.), and
	(b) "application for benefit deductions", in relation to a relevant benefit, means an application to the Secretary of State asking him to deduct sums from any amounts payable to P by way of the benefit. Part 4
	Making of collection orders

Application of Part

11 (1) This Part applies if—
	(a) the court imposing the liability to pay the sum due concludes that P should not be required to pay the sum due immediately, or
	(b) P was required to pay the sum due immediately but failed to do so;
	(and it applies whether or not the relevant court has made an attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions under Part 3 of this Schedule).
	(2) In this Part "the relevant court" has the same meaning as in Part 3 of this Schedule.

Court's power to make a collection order

12 (1) The relevant court must make an order ("a collection order") relating to the payment of the sum due, unless it appears to the court that it is impracticable or inappropriate to make the order.
	(2) If P is subject to a collection order, the powers of any court to deal with P's liability to pay the sum due are subject to the provisions of this Schedule and to fines collection regulations.

Contents of collection orders: general

13 (1) The collection order must—
	(a) state the amount of the sum due, the amount of the fine and the amount of any other part of the sum due,
	(b) state the court's conclusions as to whether P is an existing defaulter and if so whether the existing default (or defaults) can be disregarded,
	(c) if the court has made an attachment of earnings order or an application for benefit deductions, state that fact,
	(d) specify the fines office to which the order is allocated, and
	(e) contain information about the effect of the order.
	(2) In this Schedule "the fines officer", in relation to P, means any fines officer working at the fines office specified in the collection order.

Contents of collection orders: no attachment of earnings order etc. made

14 (1) If the relevant court has not under Part 3 made an attachment of earnings order or an application for benefit deductions, the collection order must state the payment terms.
	(2) "The payment terms" means—
	(a) a term requiring P to pay the sum due within a specified period, or
	(b) terms requiring P to pay the sum due by instalments of specified amounts on or before specified dates.

Contents of collection orders: attachment of earnings order etc. made

15 (1) If the court has under Part 3 of this Schedule made an attachment of earnings order or an application for benefit deductions, the collection order must state the reserve terms.
	(2) "The reserve terms" means terms of a description mentioned in paragraph 14(2) but which (subject to paragraphs 31, 32, 35, 36 and 39) are to have effect if the attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions fails.

When an attachment of earnings order fails

16 For the purposes of this Schedule, an attachment of earnings order fails if—
	(a) P's employer fails to comply with the order, or
	(b) the order is discharged at a time when P remains liable to pay any part of the sum due.

When an application for benefit deductions fails

17 For the purposes of this Schedule, an application for benefit deductions fails if—
	(a) the application is withdrawn,
	(b) the Secretary of State decides not to make deductions,
	(c) an appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State to make deductions succeeds, or
	(d) the Secretary of State ceases to make deductions at a time when P remains liable to pay any part of the sum due. Part 5
	Discount where collection order made

Application of Part

18 This Part applies if—
	(a) a collection order has been made in respect of the sum due, and
	(b) the order states that P is not an existing defaulter or, if he is, that his existing default (or defaults) can be disregarded.

Discount on fine if the sum due is paid without default

19 (1) P is allowed a discount on the fine if the sum due, less the amount of the discount, is paid without P at any time having been in default on the order.
	(2) The amount of the discount is to be determined in accordance with fines collection regulations but must not be greater than 50% of the fine.
	(3) The discount is given effect by extinguishing P's liability to pay the part of the sum due that is equal to the amount of the discount.

Meaning of "in default on a collection order"

20 For the purposes of this Schedule, P is in default on a collection order if he fails to pay any amount due under the payment terms (or, if they have effect, the reserve terms) on or before the date on which it is required to be paid. Part 6
	Variation of collection orders containing payment terms

Application of Part

21 This Part applies if the court has made a collection order and the order contains payment terms.

Application to fines officer for variation of order or attachment of earnings order etc.

22 (1) P may, at any time—
	(a) after the collection order is made and before Part 7 applies, and
	(b) when he is not in default on the order,
	apply to the fines officer under this paragraph.
	(2) P may apply for—
	(a) the payment terms to be varied, or
	(b) an attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions to be made.
	(3) No application may be made under sub-paragraph (2)(a) unless—
	(a) there has been a material change in P's circumstances since the collection order was made (or the payment terms were last varied under this paragraph), or
	(b) P is making further information about his circumstances available.
	(4) On an application under sub-paragraph (2)(a), the fines officer may decide—
	(a) to vary the payment terms in P's favour, or
	(b) not to vary them.
	(5) On an application under sub-paragraph (2)(b), the fines officer may decide—
	(a) to make an attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions, or
	(b) not to do so.
	(6) If he decides to make an order or application he must vary the collection order so that it states reserve terms.
	(7) The reserve terms must not be less favourable to P than the payment terms.
	(8) A decision of the fines officer under this paragraph must be in writing, dated and delivered to P.
	(9) Subject to paragraph 23, the effect of—
	(a) a decision under sub-paragraph (4)(a), and
	(b) a variation under sub-paragraph (6),
	is that the collection order has effect as varied by the fines officer.

Appeal against decision of fines officer

23 (1) P may, within 10 working days from the date of a decision under paragraph 22, appeal to the magistrates' court against the decision.
	(2) On an appeal under this paragraph the magistrates' court may—
	(a) confirm or vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms),
	(b) if the appeal is against a decision on an application under paragraph 22(2)(b) or if P consents, make an attachment of earnings order or an application for benefit deductions, or
	(c) discharge the collection order and exercise any of its standard powers in respect of persons liable to pay fines.
	(3) If the court makes an attachment of earnings order or an application for benefit deductions, it must vary the collection order so that it states reserve terms.

Nature of power to vary terms of collection order

24 (1) A power to vary the payment terms of a collection order includes power to—
	(a) substitute terms requiring P to pay by specified instalments on or before specified dates for a term requiring P to pay within a specified period, or
	(b) substitute a term requiring P to pay within a specified period for terms requiring P to pay the sum due by specified instalments on or before specified dates.
	(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (1), a power to vary the payment terms of a collection order under which the sum due is required to be paid within a specified period is a power to vary the date on or before which the sum due is to be paid.
	(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (1), a power to vary the payment terms of a collection order under which the sum due is required to be paid by specified instalments on or before specified dates is a power to vary—
	(a) the number of instalments payable;
	(b) the amount of any instalment;
	(c) the date on or before which any instalment is required to be paid.
	(4) This paragraph applies in relation to the variation of the reserve terms as it applies in relation to the payment terms. Part 7
	Effect of first default on collection order containing payment terms

Application of Part

25 This Part applies on the first occasion on which P is in default on a collection order containing payment terms and none of the following is pending—
	(a) an application under paragraph 22 (application to fines officer for variation of order or for attachment of earnings order etc.);
	(b) an appeal under paragraph 23 (appeal against decision of fines officer);
	(c) a reference under paragraph 42 (power of fines officer to refer case to magistrates' court).

Attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions to be made

26 (1) The fines officer must make an attachment of earnings order if it appears to him—
	(a) that P is in employment, and
	(b) that it is not impracticable or inappropriate to make the order.
	(2) The fines officer must make an application for benefit deductions if it appears to him—
	(a) that P is entitled to a relevant benefit, and
	(b) that it is not impracticable or inappropriate to make the application.
	(3) If it appears to the fines officer that (apart from this sub-paragraph) both sub-paragraph (1) and sub-paragraph (2) would apply, he must make either an attachment of earnings order or an application for benefit deductions.

Increase in fine

27 (1) This paragraph applies if—
	(a) an attachment of earnings order, or
	(b) an application for benefit deductions,
	made under paragraph 26 fails.
	(2) This paragraph also applies if the fines officer does not make—
	(a) an attachment of earnings order, or
	(b) an application for benefit deductions,
	under paragraph 26.
	(3) An increase is imposed on the fine which is the subject of the order.
	(4) The amount of the increase is to be determined in accordance with fines collection regulations but must not be greater than 50% of the fine.
	(5) The increase is given effect by treating it as part of the fine imposed on P on his conviction.
	(6) But the liability to pay the part of the fine representing the increase—
	(a) ranks after the liability to pay any other part of the sum due, and
	(b) is subject to paragraphs 35(6) and 39(2) (liability to increase extinguished in cases of subsequent compliance).

Notice of increase etc.

28 If an increase is imposed, the fines officer must deliver a notice to P (an "increase notice")—
	(a) informing P of the increase, and
	(b) requiring P, within 10 working days from the date of the notice, to contact the fines officer, in person or in writing, with a view to reviewing the position. Part 8
	Operation of collection order containing reserve terms

Application of Part

29 This Part applies if—
	(a) a collection order contains reserve terms, and
	(b) the attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions made under Part 3 or 6 fails.

Requirement to notify P on failure of an attachment of earnings order etc.

30 The fines officer must deliver to P a notice ("a payment notice") informing P—
	(a) that the order or application has failed and the reserve terms have effect,
	(b) what P has to do to comply with the reserve terms, and
	(c) of his right to make applications under paragraph 31.

Application to fines officer for variation of reserve terms

31 (1) P may, at any time—
	(a) after the date of a payment notice under paragraph 30 and before an increase is imposed under paragraph 33, and
	(b) when he is not in default on the collection order,
	apply to the fines officer for the reserve terms to be varied.
	(2) No application may be made under sub-paragraph (1) unless—
	(a) there has been a material change in P's circumstances since the reserve terms were set (or last varied under this paragraph), or
	(b) P is making further information about his circumstances available.
	(3) On such an application being made, the fines officer may decide—
	(a) to vary the reserve terms in P's favour, or
	(b) not to vary them.
	(4) A decision of the fines officer under this paragraph must be in writing, dated and delivered to P.
	(5) Subject to paragraph 32, the effect of a decision under sub-paragraph (3)(a) is that the collection order has effect with the reserve terms varied in the way decided by the fines officer.

Appeal against decision of fines officer

32 (1) P may, within 10 working days from the date of a decision under paragraph 31(3), appeal to the magistrates' court against the decision.
	(2) On an appeal under this paragraph the magistrates' court may—
	(a) confirm or vary the reserve terms, or
	(b) discharge the order and exercise any of its standard powers in respect of persons liable to pay fines.

Increase in fine on first default

33 (1) This paragraph applies on the first occasion on which P is in default on the collection order and none of the following is pending—
	(a) an application under paragraph 31(1) (application to fines officer for variation of reserve terms);
	(b) an appeal under paragraph 32(1) (appeal against decision of fines officer);
	(c) a reference under paragraph 42 (power of fines officer to refer case to magistrates' court).
	(2) An increase is imposed on the fine which is the subject of the order.
	(3) The amount of the increase is to be determined in accordance with fines collection regulations but must not be greater than 50% of the fine.
	(4) The increase is given effect by treating it as part of the fine imposed on P on his conviction.
	(5) But the liability to pay the part of the fine representing the increase—
	(a) ranks after the liability to pay any other part of the sum due, and
	(b) is subject to paragraphs 35(6) and 39(2) (liability to increase extinguished in cases of subsequent compliance).

Notice of increase etc.

34 If an increase is imposed the fines officer must deliver a notice to P (an "increase notice")—
	(a) informing P of the increase, and
	(b) requiring P, within 10 working days from the date of the notice, to contact the fines officer, in person or in writing, with a view to reviewing the position. Part 9
	Operation of collection orders after increase imposed

Effect of compliance with requirement to contact fines officer

35 (1) This paragraph applies if P contacts the fines officer as required by an increase notice under paragraph 28 or 34.
	(2) The fines officer may decide—
	(a) to vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms) in P's favour, or
	(b) not to vary them.
	(3) A decision of the fines officer under sub-paragraph (2) must be in writing, dated and delivered to P.
	(4) P may, within 10 working days from the date of the decision under sub-paragraph (2), appeal to the magistrates' court against the decision.
	(5) Subject to paragraph 39 (powers of court after increase), the effect of a decision under sub-paragraph (2)(a) is to vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms).
	(6) If, after the payment terms (or the reserve terms) are varied under sub-paragraph (2)(a), all amounts due under the order, other than the part of the fine representing the increase, are paid without P being in further default on the order, P's liability to pay that part is extinguished.

Application to fines officer after increase for variation of payment terms

36 (1) P may, at any time—
	(a) after a relevant variation of the payment terms (or the reserve terms) and before paragraph 37 applies in relation to him, and
	(b) when he is not in default on the collection order,
	apply to the fines officer for those terms to be further varied.
	(2) "Relevant variation of the payment terms (or the reserve terms)" means—
	(a) a variation under paragraph 35(2)(a) (variation in P's favour following increase), or
	(b) a variation under paragraph 39(3)(a) (variation by court).
	(3) No application may be made under sub-paragraph (1) unless—
	(a) there has been a material change in P's circumstances since—
	(i) the relevant variation, or
	(ii) the last variation under this paragraph, or
	(b) P is making further information about his circumstances available.
	(4) On such an application being made, the fines officer may decide—
	(a) to vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms) in P's favour, or
	(b) not to vary them.
	(5) A decision of the fines officer under this paragraph must be in writing, dated and delivered to P.
	(6) P may, within 10 working days from the date of a decision under sub-paragraph (4), appeal to the magistrates' court against the decision.
	(7) Subject to paragraph 39, the effect of a decision under sub-paragraph (4)(a) is to vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms).

Functions of fines officer in relation to defaulters: referral or further steps notice

37 (1) This paragraph applies if P fails to contact the fines officer as required by an increase notice under paragraph 28 or 34.
	(2) This paragraph also applies if—
	(a) P contacts the fines officer as required by an increase notice under paragraph 28 or 34,
	(b) the fines officer decides under paragraph 35(2) not to vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms), and
	(c) no appeal under paragraph 35(4) (appeal against decision about variation following increase) is pending.
	(3) This paragraph also applies if after the increase is imposed—
	(a) there is a relevant variation of the payment terms (or the reserve terms),
	(b) no relevant appeal is pending,
	(c) no application under paragraph 36(1) (application for further variation in P's favour) is pending, and
	(d) no reference under paragraph 42 (power of fines officer to refer case to magistrates' court) is pending,
	but P is again in default on the order.
	(4) "Relevant variation of the payment terms (or the reserve terms)" has the same meaning as in paragraph 36.
	(5) "Relevant appeal" means an appeal under—
	(a) paragraph 35(4) (appeal against decision whether to vary following increase), or
	(b) paragraph 36(6) (appeal against decision on application for further variation).
	(6) The fines officer must—
	(a) refer P's case to the magistrates' court, or
	(b) deliver to P a notice (a "further steps notice") that he intends to take one or more of the steps listed in paragraph 38.
	(7) Any steps that the fines officer intends to take must be specified in the notice.
	(8) A further steps notice must be in writing and dated.
	(9) P may, within 10 working days from the date of the further steps notice, appeal to the magistrates' court against it.

The range of further steps available against defaulters

38 (1) The steps referred to in paragraphs 37(6)(b) and 39(3) and (4) (powers to take further steps) are—
	(a) issuing a warrant of distress for the purpose of levying the sum due;
	(b) registering the sum in the register of judgments and orders required to be kept by section 96;
	(c) making an attachment of earnings order or an application for benefit deductions;
	(d) subject to sub-paragraph (3), making a clamping order;
	(e) taking any other step permitted under provisions of fines collections regulations which apply any other enforcement power of a magistrates' court (with or without modifications).
	(2) A clamping order is an order—
	(a) that a motor vehicle be fitted with an immobilisation device ("clamped"), and
	(b) which complies with any requirements that are imposed by fines collection regulations under paragraph 46 with respect to the making of clamping orders.
	(3) A clamping order must not be made except in relation to a vehicle which is registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) in P's name.

Powers of court after increase

39 (1) This paragraph applies if the magistrates' court is hearing P's case following—
	(a) an appeal under paragraph 35(4) or 36(6) (appeals against decisions about variation following increase),
	(b) a referral under paragraph 37(6)(a) (functions of fines officer in relation to defaulters), or
	(c) an appeal under paragraph 37(9) (appeal against a further steps notice).
	(2) If the magistrates' court is satisfied that the circumstances of P's case are exceptional, it may make an order that if, after the making of the order, all amounts due under the collection order, other than the part of the fine representing the increase, are paid without P being in further default on the order, P's liability to pay that part is extinguished.
	(3) On an appeal or referral falling within sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the court may—
	(a) vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms);
	(b) take any of the steps listed in paragraph 38;
	(c) discharge the order and exercise any of its standard powers in respect of persons liable to pay fines.
	(4) On an appeal against a further steps notice, the court may—
	(a) confirm or quash the notice;
	(b) vary the notice so as to specify any step listed in paragraph 38;
	(c) vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms);
	(d) discharge the order and exercise any of its standard powers in respect of persons liable to pay fines.

Implementation of further steps notice

40 If—
	(a) P does not appeal within 10 working days against a further steps notice, or
	(b) he does so but the further steps notice is confirmed or varied,any step specified in the notice (or the notice as varied) may be taken.

Power to order sale of clamped vehicle

41 (1) This paragraph applies if—
	(a) a motor vehicle has been clamped under a clamping order, and
	(b) at the end of the period specified in fines collection regulations under paragraph 46 any part of the sum due is unpaid.
	(2) The magistrates' court may order that—
	(a) the vehicle is to be sold or otherwise disposed of in accordance with those regulations, and
	(b) any proceeds are to be applied in accordance with those regulations in discharging P's liability in respect of the sum due.

Power of fines officer to refer case to magistrates' court

42 (1) The fines officer may refer a case to the magistrates' court at any time during the period which—
	(a) begins the day after the collection order is made, and
	(b) ends with the date on which—(i) the sum due (including any increase to which he remains liable) is paid, or(ii) the order is discharged.
	(2) On a referral under this paragraph, the court may—
	(a) confirm or vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms),
	(b) discharge the order and exercise any of its standard powers in respect of persons liable to pay fines, or
	(c) to the extent permitted by fines collection regulations, exercise a power it could exercise under any other paragraph.
	(3) Fines collection regulations may provide for the fines officer to have the power to issue a summons for the purpose of ensuring that P attends a magistrates' court to whom P's case has been referred under this paragraph or paragraph 37. Part 10
	Supplementary provisions

Fines collection regulations

43 In this Schedule "fines collection regulations" means regulations made by the Lord Chancellor for the purpose of giving effect to this Schedule.
	44 (1) Fines collection regulations may, for the purpose of giving effect to this Schedule and section (Collection of fines and discharge of fines by unpaid work) so far as it relates to this Schedule, make provision modifying (or applying with modifications) any enactment which relates to fines or the enforcement of payment of sums falling within paragraph 1(1).
	(2) The enactments which may be so modified (or applied with modifications) include enactments containing offences.
	(3) Fines collection regulations may make different provision for different cases.
	45 Fines collection regulations may, for the purpose of giving effect to the powers to make attachment of earnings orders, make provision as to the method for calculating the amounts which are to be deducted from P's earnings.
	46 (1) Fines collection regulations may, for the purpose of giving effect to the powers to make clamping orders and to order the sale of clamped motor vehicles, make provision in connection with—
	(a) the fitting of immobilisation devices;
	(b) the fitting of immobilisation notices to motor vehicles to which immobilisation devices have been fitted;
	(c) the removal and storage of motor vehicles;
	(d) the release of motor vehicles from immobilisation devices or from storage (including the conditions to be met before the vehicle is released);
	(e) the sale or other disposal of motor vehicles not released.
	(2) Fines collection regulations must provide that an immobilisation device may not be fitted to a vehicle—
	(a) which displays a current disabled person's badge, or
	(b) in relation to which there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is used for the carriage of a disabled person.
	(3) In this Schedule—
	"disabled person's badge" means a badge issued, or having effect as if issued, under regulations made under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (c. 44) (badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons);
	"immobilisation device" has the same meaning as in section 104(9) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (immobilisation of vehicles illegally parked);
	"motor vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads, except that section 189 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (exceptions for certain vehicles) applies for the purposes of this Schedule as it applies for the purposes of the Road Traffic Acts.
	47 Fines collection regulations may make provision relating to cases where a person who is subject to a collection order changes his place of residence.

Offences of providing false information, failing to disclose information etc.

48 (1) P commits an offence if, in providing a statement of his financial circumstances to a fines officer in response to a relevant request, he—
	(a) makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular,
	(b) recklessly provides a statement which is false in a material particular, or
	(c) knowingly fails to disclose any material fact.
	(2) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
	(3) P commits an offence if he fails to provide a statement of his financial circumstances to a fines officer in response to a relevant request.
	(4) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (3) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
	(5) A relevant request is a request for information about P's financial circumstances which—
	(a) is made by a fines officer, and
	(b) is expressed to be made for the purpose of determining whether or how the fines officer should vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms) of a collection order in P's favour.
	(6) Proceedings in respect of an offence under this paragraph may be commenced at any time within—
	(a) 2 years from the date of the commission of the offence, or
	(b) 6 months from its first discovery by the prosecutor,
	whichever ends first.

Offence of meddling with vehicle clamp

49 (1) A person commits an offence if he removes or attempts to remove—
	(a) an immobilisation device, or
	(b) an immobilisation notice,
	fitted or fixed to a motor vehicle in accordance with a clamping order made under a further steps notice or under paragraph 39(3)(b) (powers of court after increase).
	(2) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

Meaning of "standard powers in respect of persons liable to pay fines"

50 In this Schedule "standard powers in respect of persons liable to pay fines" means any power—
	(a) that a magistrates' court would have had if P had not been subject to a collection order but had been liable to pay the sum due, and
	(b) which fines collection regulations apply (with or without modifications) for the purposes of this Schedule.

Meaning of references to pending appeals

51 For the purposes of this Schedule the period during which an appeal under this Schedule is pending is to be treated as including the period within which the appeal may be brought (regardless of whether it is in fact brought).

Meaning of "10 working days"

52 In this Schedule "10 working days" means any period of 10 days not including—
	(a) Saturday or Sunday,
	(b) Christmas Day or Good Friday, or
	(c) any day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 (c. 80).

Meaning of "the magistrates' court"

53 In this Schedule "the magistrates' court", in relation to a collection order, means any magistrates' court acting in the local justice area in which the court which made the order was sitting."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20 to 23.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20 to 23.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

24 After Schedule 5, Insert the following new Schedule— "Discharge of fines by unpaid work
	Part 1
	Work orders

Introductory

1 (1) This Part of this Schedule applies if a person aged 18 or over ("P") is liable to pay a sum which is or is treated for the purposes of Part 3 of the 1980 Act as a sum adjudged to be paid by conviction of a magistrates' court.
	(2) In this Part of this Schedule—
	"the prescribed hourly sum" means such sum as may be prescribed by regulations;
	"regulations" means regulations made under this Schedule by the Lord Chancellor;
	"the relevant court" means—
	(a) the court imposing the liability to pay the relevant sum, or
	(b) if that liability has previously been imposed, the magistrates' court responsible for enforcing payment of the relevant sum;
	"the relevant sum" means the sum for which P is liable as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), but excluding any pecuniary compensation, any pecuniary forfeiture or any sum due in respect of prosecution costs.

Cases where work order may be made

2 (1) The relevant court may, on the application of a fines officer or of its own motion, make an order under this Schedule (a "work order") where—
	(a) it appears to the court that in view of P's financial circumstances all the following methods of enforcing payment of the relevant sum are likely to be impracticable or inappropriate—
	(i) a warrant of distress under section 76 of the 1980 Act,
	(ii) an application to the High Court or county court for enforcement under section 87 of the 1980 Act,
	(iii) an order under section 88 of the 1980 Act,
	(iv) an attachment of earnings order,
	(v) an application for deductions to be made by virtue of section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (recovery of fines etc. by deductions from income support etc.), and(vi) a collection order under Schedule (Collection of fines),
	(b) it appears to the court that P is a suitable person to perform unpaid work under this Schedule, and
	(c) P consents to the making of the order.
	(2) A court which is considering the making of a work order may issue a summons requiring P to appear before the court.
	(3) A magistrates' court which is considering the making of a work order may order P to give to the court, within a specified period, such a statement of his means as the court may require.
	(4) Subsections (2) to (4) of section 84 of the 1980 Act (offences in respect of statement of means) apply to an order made under sub-paragraph (3) as they apply to an order made under subsection (1) of that section.

Provisions of order

3 (1) A work order is an order requiring P to perform unpaid work for a specified number of hours, in accordance with instructions to be given by the fines officer, in order to discharge by virtue of this Schedule his liability for the relevant sum.
	(2) The order must also—
	(a) state the amount of the relevant sum,
	(b) specify a fines office to which the order is allocated, and
	(c) specify a person ("the supervisor") who is to act as supervisor in relation to P.
	(3) The specified number of hours is to be determined by dividing the relevant sum by the prescribed hourly sum and, where the result is not a whole number, adjusting the result upwards to the next whole number.
	(4) A work order must specify a date ("the specified date") not later than which the required hours of unpaid work must be performed.
	(5) In the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule "the fines officer", in relation to P, means any fines officer working at the fines office specified in the work order.

Effect of order on enforcement of payment

4 (1) Where a work order has been made in respect of the relevant sum, payment of that sum may not be enforced against P unless the order is revoked.
	(2) On making a work order, the court must revoke any order relating to the enforcement of the payment of the relevant sum.

Appointment of, and duties of, supervisor

5 (1) A person may not be appointed as the supervisor without his consent.
	(2) It is the duty of the supervisor—
	(a) to monitor P's compliance with the requirements of the work order, and
	(b) to provide the court with such information as the court may require relating to P's compliance with those requirements.

Obligations of person subject to work order, and effect of compliance

6 (1) Where a work order is in force, P must perform for the number of hours specified in the order such work, at such places and at such times as he may be instructed by the fines officer.
	(2) The fines officer must ensure, as far as practicable, that any instructions given to P in pursuance of the work order are such as to avoid—
	(a) any conflict with P's religious beliefs, and
	(b) any interference with the times, if any, at which he normally works or attends school or any other educational establishment.
	(3) If not later than the specified date P performs work in accordance with the instructions of the fines officer for the specified number of hours, his liability to pay the relevant sum is discharged.

Effect of payment

7 (1) Where a work order has been made in respect of any sum—
	(a) on payment of the whole of the sum to any person authorised to receive it, the work order ceases to have effect, and
	(b) on payment of part of the sum to any such person, the number of hours specified in the order is to be taken to be reduced by a proportion corresponding to that which the part paid bears to the whole of the relevant sum.
	(2) In calculating any reduction required by sub-paragraph (1)(b), any fraction of an hour is to be disregarded.

Revocation or variation of order

8 (1) If, on the application of the fines officer, it appears to the relevant court that P is failing or has failed to comply with a work order without reasonable excuse, the court must revoke the order.
	(2) If, on the application of the fines officer, it appears to the relevant court—
	(a) that P has failed to comply with a work order but has a reasonable excuse for the failure, or
	(b) that, because of a change in circumstances since the order was made, P is unlikely to be able to comply with a work order,
	the court may revoke the order or postpone the specified date.
	(3) The relevant court may of its own motion revoke a work order if it appears to the court that, because of a change in circumstances since the order was made, P is unlikely to be able to comply with the order.
	(4) A work order may be revoked under any of sub-paragraphs (1) to (3), or varied under sub-paragraph (2), before the specified date (as well as on or after that date).
	(5) Regulations may provide for the fines officer to have the power to issue a summons for the purpose of ensuring that P attends the court to which an application has been made under sub-paragraph (1) or (2).

Allowing for work done

9 (1) If it appears to the court revoking a work order under paragraph 8(1), (2) or (3) that P has performed at least one hour of unpaid work in accordance with the instructions of the fines officer, the court must by order specify the number of hours of work that have been performed; and for this purpose any fraction of an hour is to be disregarded.
	(2) Where the court has specified a number of hours under this paragraph, P's liability to pay the relevant sum is discharged to the extent of the prescribed hourly sum in respect of each hour.

Effect of revocation

10 (1) Where a work order is revoked under paragraph 8(1), (2) or (3), immediate payment of the relevant sum (subject to any reduction under paragraph 9(2)) may be enforced against P.
	(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not limit the court's power, on or after the revocation of the work order, to allow time for payment or to direct payment by instalments.

Order not directly enforceable

11 The obligations of P under a work order are not enforceable against him except by virtue of paragraph 10(1).

Evidence of supervisor

12 (1) This paragraph applies where—
	(a) it falls to a court to determine whether P has performed unpaid work in accordance with a work order, and
	(b) the court is satisfied—
	(i) that the supervisor is likely to be able to give evidence that may assist the court in determining that matter, and
	(ii) that the supervisor will not voluntarily attend as a witness.
	(2) The court may issue a summons directed to that person requiring him to attend before the court at the time and place appointed in the summons to give evidence.

Provision of information

13 Regulations may—
	(a) require a work order to contain prescribed information,
	(b) require the court making a work order to give a copy of the order to such persons as may be prescribed, and
	(c) require the court revoking or varying a work order to give notice of the revocation or variation to such persons as may be prescribed."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24 and do propose Amendments Nos. 24A to 24C thereto and Amendment No. 24D consequential on it:
	Line 6, leave out "Part of this"
	Line 10, leave out "Part of this"
	Line 67, leave out "Part of this"
	Clause 106, Page 58, line 19, at end insert—
	"( ) regulations under Schedule (Discharge of fines by unpaid work) relating to the prescribed hourly sum."
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24 and do propose Amendments Nos. 24A to 24C thereto and Amendment No. 24D consequential on it.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

25 Schedule 7, page 114, line 40, leave out from beginning to second "for" in line 41 and insert—
	"220 (1) Amend section 82 (restriction on power to impose imprisonment for default) as follows.
	(2) After subsection (4A) insert— "(4B) The cases in which the offender's default may be regarded for the purposes of subsection (4)(b)(i) as being attributable to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect include any case in which—
	(a) he has refused, otherwise than on reasonable grounds, to consent to a work order proposed to be made under Schedule (Discharge of fines by unpaid work) to the Courts Act 2003 (discharge of fines by unpaid work), or
	(b) he has without reasonable excuse failed to comply with such an order."
	(3) In subsection (5A),"
	26 Page 114, line 44, at end insert—
	"221A (1) Amend section 85 (power to remit fine) as follows.
	(2) After subsection (2A) insert— "(2B) Where the court remits the whole or part of the fine after a work order has been made under Schedule (Discharge of fines by unpaid work) to the Courts Act 2003 (discharge of fines by unpaid work), it shall also reduce the number of hours specified in the order by a number which bears the same proportion as the amount remitted bears to the whole sum or, as the case may be, shall revoke the order".
	(3) In subsection (3), leave out "or (2A)" and insert ", (2A) or (2B)"."
	27 Page 132, line 27, at end insert—
	"371A(1) Amend Schedule 2 (police authorities established under section 3) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 1(1)(c) and (2)(c), for "magistrates" substitute "lay justices".
	(3) For paragraphs 7 and 8 substitute—"7 The members of a police authority referred to in paragraph 1(1)(c) or (2)(c) must be lay justices each of whom is assigned to a local justice area wholly or partly within the authority's area.8 They shall be appointed—
	(a) by the members of the police authority appointed under paragraph 2 or 5,
	(b) from among persons on a short-list prepared in accordance with Schedule 3A."
	(4) In paragraph 14(1)—
	(a) in paragraph (b) for "magistrate" substitute "lay justice", and
	(b) in paragraph (c) after "Schedule 3" insert "or 3A".
	(5) For paragraph 18(2) substitute—
	"(2) A lay justice appointed to be a member of a police authority under paragraph 8 shall cease to be a member of the authority if he ceases to be a lay justice assigned to a local justice area wholly or partly within the authority's area."
	(6) In paragraph 19(2)—
	(a) in paragraph (a), omit "or 8", and
	(b) in paragraph (b), after "5" insert "or 8".
	(7) For paragraph 27 substitute—"27 In this Schedule, "lay justice" has the meaning given by section 9 of the Courts Act 2003."
	371B(1) Amend Schedule 2A (the Metropolitan Police Authority) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 1(1)(c) and (2)(c), for "magistrates" substitute "lay justices".
	(3) For paragraph 5 substitute—
	"5 (1) The members of the Metropolitan Police Authority referred to in paragraph 1(1)(c) or (2)(c) must be lay justices each of whom is assigned to a local justice area wholly or partly within the metropolitan police district.
	(2) They shall be appointed—
	(a) by the members of the Metropolitan Police Authority appointed under paragraph 2 or 3,
	(b) from among persons on a short-list prepared in accordance with Schedule 3A."
	(4) In paragraph 9(1)(d) for "magistrate for a commission area" substitute "lay justice assigned to a local justice area".
	(5) For paragraph 13(3) substitute—
	"(3) A lay justice appointed to be a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority under paragraph 5 shall cease to be a member of the Authority if he ceases to be a lay justice assigned to a local justice area wholly or partly within the metropolitan police district."
	(6) In paragraph 14(2)—
	(a) in paragraph (a), omit "or 5", and
	(b) in paragraph (b), after "3" insert "or 5".
	(7) For paragraph 22 substitute—"22 In this Schedule, "lay justice" has the meaning given by section 9 of the Courts Act 2003."
	371C(1) Amend Schedule 3 (police authorities: selection of independent members) as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 1(1), after paragraph (b) insert—"for the purposes of paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 and paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 2A."
	(3) After paragraph 1(4) insert—
	"(5) In this Schedule "selection panel" means a selection panel established under this Schedule."
	371D After Schedule 3 insert— "Schedule 3a
	Police authorities: selection of lay justice members

Lay justice selection panels

1 (1) There shall be a selection panel—
	(a) for each police area for the time being listed in Schedule 1, and
	(b) for the police area constituted by the metropolitan police district,
	for the purposes of paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 and paragraph 5 of Schedule 2A.
	(2) Each selection panel shall consist of three members, one of whom shall be appointed by each of the following—
	(a) the designated members of the police authority for the area;
	(b) the Secretary of State;
	(c) the two members of the panel appointed by virtue of paragraphs (a) and (b).
	(3) A designated member may be appointed as a member of a selection panel by virtue of paragraph (a) (but not paragraph (b) or (c)) of sub-paragraph (2).
	(4) In this Schedule, "designated member" means a member appointed under paragraph 2 or 5 of Schedule 2 or paragraph 2 or 3 of Schedule 2A.
	(5) Subject to paragraph 3, in this Schedule "selection panel" means a selection panel established under this Schedule.2 A person shall be disqualified for being appointed as or being a member of a selection panel if, by virtue of paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 or paragraph 7 of Schedule 2A he is disqualified—
	(a) for being appointed under paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 or paragraph 5 of Schedule 2A as a member of the police authority for the panel's area, or
	(b) for being a member so appointed.3 Paragraphs 3 to 7 of Schedule 3 apply in relation to selection panels established under this Schedule as they apply in relation to selection panels established under that Schedule.

Functions of lay justice selection panels

4 (1) Where appointments of lay justices to a police authority are to be made under paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 or paragraph 5 of Schedule 2A, the selection panel for the authority's area shall prepare a short-list of candidates and send it to the police authority concerned.
	(2) Unless the selection panel are able to identify only a smaller number of suitable candidates, the number of candidates on the short-list shall be twice the number of appointments to be made.
	(3) A lay justice shall not be included on a short-list in relation to an authority if he is disqualified for being appointed as a member of that authority by virtue of paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 or paragraph 7 of Schedule 2A.
	5 (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations as to—
	(a) the procedures to be followed in relation to the selection of lay justices for inclusion on a short-list under paragraph 2, and
	(b) the conduct of the proceedings of selection panels under this Schedule.
	(2) Regulations under this paragraph may in particular—
	(a) make provision (including provision imposing time limits) as to the procedures to be adopted when inviting applications for inclusion on a short-list under paragraph 4 and for dealing with applications received, and
	(b) provide for decisions of a selection panel under this Schedule to be taken by a majority of the members.
	(3) Regulations under this paragraph may make different provision for different cases and circumstances.
	(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Procedure if too few candidates short-listed

6 (1) This paragraph applies where the number of persons on the lay justice selection panel's short-list is less than twice the number of appointments to be made.
	(2) The designated members may add to the short-list such number of candidates as, when added to the number short-listed by the selection panel, equals twice the number of appointments to be made.""
	28 Page 133, line 6, at end insert—

"National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39)

376A After section 45 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 insert— "45A Persons discharging fines by unpaid work
	A person does not qualify for the national minimum wage in respect of any work that he does in pursuance of a work order under Schedule (Discharge of fines by unpaid work) to the Courts Act 2003 (discharge of fines by unpaid work).""
	29 After Schedule 7, Insert the following new Schedule— "Transitional provisions and savings

Interpretation

1 In this Schedule "the JPA 1997" means the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (c. 25).

Orders contracting out the provision of officers and staff

2 Any order which, immediately before section 2 comes into force, was in force under section 27(3) of the Courts Act 1971 (c. 23), including, in particular, any order made under section 27(3) by virtue of—
	(a) section 4(7) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (c. 9), or
	(b) section 82(3) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (c. 23), shall have effect as if made under section 2 for the purpose of discharging the Lord Chancellor's general duty in relation to the courts (and may be amended or revoked accordingly).

Local justice areas

3 The first order under section 8 must specify as a local justice area each area which was a petty sessions area immediately before the time when that section comes into force.

Appointment and assignment of lay justices

4 A person who, immediately before section 10 comes into force, was a justice of the peace for a commission area under section 5 of the JPA 1997 shall be treated as having been—
	(a) appointed under section 10(1) as a lay justice for England and Wales, and
	(b) assigned under section 10(2)(a) to the local justice area which—
	(i) is specified as such in the first order under section 8, and
	(ii) immediately before section 10 comes into force, was the petty sessions area in and for which he ordinarily acted.

The supplemental list

5 (1) The existing supplemental list shall have effect as the supplemental list required to be kept by section 12; and any name which, immediately before that section comes into force, was included in that list under a provision listed in column 1 of the table shall be treated as having been entered in the list under the provision listed in column 2—
	
		
			 Provision of the JPA 1997 Provision of this Act 
			 Section 7(2) Section 13(1) 
			 Section 7(4) Section 13(5) 
			 Section 7(6) Section 13(4) 
		
	
	(2) "The existing supplemental list" means the supplemental list having effect under the JPA 1997 immediately before section 12 comes into force.

Keepers of the rolls

6 A person who, immediately before section 16 comes into force, was under section 25 of the JPA 1997 keeper of the rolls for a commission area shall be treated as having been appointed under section 16 as keeper of the rolls for each local justice area which—
	(a) is specified as such in the first order under section 8, and
	(b) immediately before section 16 comes into force, formed part of, or consisted of, that commission area.

Chairman and deputy chairmen of the bench

7 A person who, immediately before section 17 comes into force, was under section 22 of the JPA 1997 the chairman (or a deputy chairman) of the justices for a petty sessions area shall be treated as having been chosen under section 17 as the chairman (or a deputy chairman) of the lay justices assigned to the corresponding local justice area specified in the first order under section 8.

Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate)

8 (1) The person who, immediately before section 23 comes into force, was under section 10A of the JPA 1997 the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) shall be treated as having been designated as such under section 23(a).
	(2) A person who, immediately before section 23 comes into force, was under section 10A of the JPA 1997 the deputy of the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) shall be treated as having been designated as such under section 23(b).

Justices' clerks and assistant clerks

9 A person who—
	(a) immediately before section 27 comes into force, was a justices' clerk for a petty sessions area (or areas), and
	(b) is transferred to the Lord Chancellor's employment by virtue of paragraph 11 of Schedule 2, shall be treated as having been designated as a justices' clerk under section 27(1)(b) and assigned under section 27(3)(a) to the corresponding local justice area (or areas) specified in the first order under section 8.
	10 A person who—
	(a) immediately before section 27 comes into force, was employed to assist a justices' clerk by acting as a clerk in court in proceedings before a justice or justices, and
	(b) is transferred to the Lord Chancellor's employment by virtue of paragraph 11 of Schedule 2,shall be treated as having been designated as an assistant to a justices' clerk under section 27(5)(b).
	11 (1) Any regulations made under—
	(a) section 42 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 (c. 101) (compensation in connection with Parts 2 and 3 of the 1949 Act), or
	(b) paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 to the Justices of the Peace Act 1968 (c. 69) (compensation in connection with section 1 of the 1968 Act),
	and in force immediately before paragraph 20 of Schedule 4 to the JPA 1997 is repealed by this Act shall continue to have effect and may be revoked or amended despite the repeal by the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (c. 55) of the provisions under which they were made.
	(2) The power to make amendments by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) of regulations falling within paragraph (a) of that sub-paragraph shall extend to making provision—
	(a) for compensation to or in respect of persons falling within sub-paragraph (3) to be payable if such persons suffer loss of employment, or loss or diminution of emoluments, attributable to anything done under Part 2;
	(b) for the determination by persons other than magistrates' courts committees of claims for compensation to be made;
	(c) for the payment by the Lord Chancellor of compensation payable under the regulations.
	(3) A person falls within this sub-paragraph if—
	(a) on 2nd February 1995 he held the office of justices' clerk or was employed to assist a justices' clerk, and
	(b) is transferred to the Lord Chancellor's employment by virtue of paragraph 11 of Schedule 2.
	(4) A person who under regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(a) is entitled to compensation in respect of anything done under Part 2 is not entitled to compensation in respect of that thing under a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 by virtue of section 2(2)(a) of that Act.

Family proceedings courts

12 Any justice of the peace who, immediately before section 49 comes into force, was qualified to sit as a member of a family proceedings court shall be treated as having been authorised to do so by the Lord Chancellor under section 67 of the 1980 Act (as substituted by section 49).

Youth courts

13 Any justice of the peace who, immediately before section 50 comes into force, was qualified to sit as a member of a youth court shall be treated as having been authorised to do so by the Lord Chancellor under section 45 of the 1933 Act (as substituted by section 50).

Inspectors of court administration

14 Any person who, immediately before section 58 comes into force, was an inspector of the magistrates' courts service under section 62 of the JPA 1997 shall be treated as having been appointed as an inspector of court administration under section 58(1).

Collection of fines and discharge of fines by unpaid work

15 (1) This paragraph applies if section (Collection of fines and discharge of fines by unpaid work) and Schedule (Collection of fines) are brought into force before section 8.
	(2) Section (Collection of fines and discharge of fines by unpaid work) and Schedule (Collection of fines) have effect in relation to the period ending with the date on which section 8 comes into force as if any reference to a local justice area were a reference to a petty sessions area.

Register of judgments and orders

16 The register having effect under section 73 of the County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28) immediately before section 96 comes into force shall be treated as part of the register required to be kept under section 96."
	30 Schedule 8, page 144, line 41, at end insert—
	"In Schedule 2, in paragraph 19(2)(a),"or 8".
	In Schedule 2A, in paragraph 14(2)(a), "or 5"."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25 to 30.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the Amendments Nos. 25 to 30.—(Lord Filkin.)
	On Question, Motion agreed.

Extradition Bill

Read a third time.
	Clause 2 [Part 1 warrant and certificate]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 2, line 9, leave out "with a view to" and insert "for"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Lamont, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 in his name and also to Amendment No. 33 in my name.
	The question addressed by my noble friend's amendments is whether someone can be extradited to a category 1 territory for the purposes of interrogation after merely being accused rather than for the purpose of prosecution when there is already substantive evidence to warrant a trial. The Government's position throughout our debates is that the drafting in the Bill already guarantees that a person can be extradited for the purposes of prosecution and not for evidence-gathering purposes. Despite the Minister's insistence on this point, we are not convinced.
	My noble friend's Amendment No. 1 would put the matter beyond all doubt and ensure that the arrested person should be extradited only on the basis that he or she would be prosecuted. It is our intention to avoid a fishing expedition.
	My noble friend has also tabled Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 which provide a stiffer test to ensure that the person faces prosecution. I note that my noble friend is in his place and I am sure that he will speak in more detail on those amendments.
	My Amendment No. 33 has been tabled to ask the Government to clarify some of the remaining uncertainties about the drafting of Clause 2 of the Bill and its impact on the ability of the police properly to carry out their duties of search under Clause 157. The Government published a consultation paper on the draft code of practice for the Bill earlier this summer. In Grand Committee—that lonely place upstairs where I was joined by a hardy band such as my noble friends Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, Lady Carnegy of Lour and Lord Lamont, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden—we laboured long and hard on this Bill. I put to the Government some initial questions about the responses but could not pursue the questions until the responses were published. They were published on 4th November.
	The consultation paper asked respondents to comment on passages that are confusing, ambiguous or lack clarity. In particular, the Government asked whether,
	"the distinction between investigation of the extradition offence and obtaining evidence for the prosecution of the extradition offence needed further explanation".
	The resounding answer from the respondents was "yes". Nineteen respondents—two-thirds of the total—commented on the question. Of those, 18 said that the distinction required further explanation, with three respondents suggesting alternative wording. One respondent felt that the formulation was unworkable.
	My amendment adopts the alternative wording suggested to the Government by the law reform committee of the General Council of the Bar. I could just as easily have adopted the drafting put forward by the Magistrates' Association or the Metropolitan Police Service. They would all have served equally well.
	My questions to the Government are as follows. What action will they take as a result of these responses? Will they, for example, redraft the code of practice to adopt any of the drafting solutions offered to them by the respondents? If so, which of those drafting solutions? The Government, on page 5 of the response, point out that Parliament has been anxious to preclude any activity by UK police officers that could be deemed to be a fishing trip for evidence. We are still anxious. That is particularly because of the way in which the Government's response continues. They state:
	"Clause 2(3)(b) of the Bill explicitly provides that the person's extradition must be sought for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence".
	But then they go on to state:
	"Any investigation of the extradition offence after a request has been made could be deemed to undermine this provision".
	Why only "could"? Why not "would"? Does not that mean that the Government at heart recognise that an investigation rather than a prosecution could occur? What reassurance can the Government give today that they have so far failed to find? I beg to move.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, first, I apologise for being absent when my amendment was called. Either the annunciator is working with a considerable time-lag, or alternatively the last group of amendments was dispatched with extraordinary speed. I apologise for not having anticipated the latter.
	We are pleased to see the return of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, to speak on this issue. We tried very hard with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and got nowhere. I greatly hope that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, will reply to the amendments in some detail and will listen with an open mind to the arguments for them.
	My three amendments return to the question of whether it is sufficient for a person to be extradited when he is simply accused of an offence and it is not definite that he will be charged. There is a problem of terminology, or semantics, because we tend to assume that "accused" implies "charged", or is synonymous with it. But in continental Europe, that is not the case. The word "accused" may be consistent with the beginning of an investigation or an investigation continuing. I previously quoted the opinion of Mr Leolin Price QC about how arrest was the beginning of the process of investigation and that in many jurisdictions being accused was consistent with both being charged and not being charged. A person might be in custody for many months, held by an investigating magistrate under the continental system of investigating prosecutors, without there ever being a trial. The accused may not be charged until the end—or he may not be charged at all.
	Amendment No. 1 deletes the words "with a view to". This point was first alighted on by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who pointed out the vagueness of the phrase. I hope that by deleting those words, we are making it more definite that a person who is to be extradited is, in the mind of the extraditing authority, definitely going to be charged.
	The Minister and the noble Baroness have frequently said that the Bill provides that a person cannot be extradited simply for questioning; there must be an intent to prosecute. But how can anyone know with that degree of vague wording? I agree that there is a problem; that any extraditing request could on its warrant have whatever we have written into our legislation. I agree that, as a problem, there is no way around that. Whatever was required by our legislation, however we framed it, could be written into a warrant. However, if prosecution were required after extradition and if a pattern of behaviour emerged with a particular country, no doubt the courts would take that into account in the future.
	I do not want to weary the House—we discussed the matter previously—but I believe that this is a serious issue. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, remarked that it was common knowledge that people in certain continental countries were sometimes detained for long periods of time without being charged. This increases the pressure to strike a bargain with the prosecutor; or the prosecutor, in order to protect his own position, may give the person a sentence that is equal to the length of time the person has been investigated. I quoted what John Mortimer QC said on this point. He has written a number of articles using the arguments incorporated in my amendments.
	The Government have said on several occasions that they have never known a case of extradition from the UK where the problem I have described has arisen. They will not know if they do not ask the question and are not determined to look into the matter. There may not have been a case of extradition from the UK, but how do we know about the large number of British citizens in gaols in different countries within the EU?
	I tabled a series of Written Questions which referred to the individual countries within the EU and asked how many people had been detained, had not been given bail and had not been charged. The Written Answer given by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, detailed the number of people in prison in different EU countries on 31st March last year but stated that the Government were not aware of anyone who had been detained without being charged.
	I then asked what definition was used in the response to those questions: was it simply the word "accused" as opposed to the word "charged"? I should have thought that that was a very simple question to put to the Government. The reply that I received was that the Government did not know of anyone who had been held in prison without being charged. I am not sure of the relevance of that response to the question that I put.
	Subsequently, I thought of another way of putting my questions. I asked how many people had been released without being brought to court. That would have given some indication of whether people had been detained without being charged. I was told that the costs of discovering that information would be disproportionate. With all due respect to the Government, I believe that that was an inspired question; indeed—if he does not mind my saying so—it was inspired by a conversation that I had over dinner with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I hope, therefore, that I shall have some support from the noble Lord for these amendments.
	I consider this to be a serious issue, and it strikes me as a rather unworthy reply to say that the cost of finding out that information is disproportionate. I am not indulging in my own fishing expedition; I am trying to find out how systems of justice operate in other countries. It seems to me that debating the rights of someone who may be extradited or, indeed, discussing the rights of British citizens in other countries who have been put in gaol is a fairly serious matter. To put it politely, I am extremely disappointed that the Government do not feel that they can possibly answer that question.
	With great respect to the Government, I have to say that for much of the time in Grand Committee the noble Baroness made the assumption that anyone who is accused is automatically guilty. Many of the remarks also implied that it was a two-way trade and that we want people to be extradited back here from other countries. I understand that that is in the public interest. However, surely the rights of the individual and of the person who may be wrongly accused or who may be unjustly imprisoned for long periods simply in the interests of investigation are matters of considerable importance and should not simply be brushed aside. It seems to me that the rights of the accused are being brushed aside. If Ministers were in opposition, I believe that they would be singing a different song and would be far more interested in this issue than they appear to have been in previous responses to amendments of this kind.
	In the other two amendments—Amendments Nos. 2 and 3—I have tried to tackle this problem by putting a time limit of six months within which a person must be charged or, alternatively, within which he must be charged and returned to this country. Of course, I see that those amendments are impractical but the Minister can no doubt understand what I am getting at. I am trying to address a problem but I certainly do not intend to press those amendments to a Division. However, what I do with regard to the first amendment will depend very much on what the Minister says in reply.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I give some support to Amendment No. 1, although I certainly would not support Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 if the noble Lord pressed them. However, I should make plain that, in supporting the amendment, I do not in any way associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said about the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to this matter. I consider her approach to have been exemplary. She has taken the greatest care and trouble to listen and, where possible, to give way to the amendments moved, as demonstrated by the considerable number of amendments that appear in her name on the Marshalled List today.
	Everyone agrees that extradition will be only for the purposes of being tried and not for the purposes of being investigated. The Government said that that is already contained in the words,
	"issued with a view to his arrest and extradition . . . for the purpose of being prosecuted",
	and that, therefore, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is unnecessary.
	If the interpretation of those words was solely a matter for the English courts, I should suspect, perhaps with the benefit of considering what the Minister said according to the ruling in Pepper v Hart, that that rule would probably prevail, but that is not the way that the measure is to be used. The warrant must contain a statement made by the foreign authority that that is the purpose for which the warrant is issued.
	Foreign authorities may well be used to arresting people with a view to their being questioned and will obviously be keen to fill in the form of words required in order to obtain an individual's extradition if that can be squared with their conscience. It seems to me desirable that the wording should be as explicit and as unambiguous as possible so as to make it as difficult as possible for foreign authorities to bend or adapt the rules to fit their view of life and to fill in the form saying, "Of course, this is done with a view to his prosecution. We don't question anyone unless it is with a view to his prosecution. But whether we shall be able to have him prosecuted will depend on the answers that we get to our questions".
	Therefore, I believe that, in those circumstances, there is something to be said for making the words 150 per cent explicit. I ask the Minister to give way on that point, which, he said, makes no difference because, on any basis, the wording is already included in the Bill.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a question with the Minister. It was debated at some length in the House of Commons but, so far as I know, it has not been debated in our proceedings on this Bill. No doubt the noble Lord will put me straight if I am wrong.
	The meaning of the Bill and the amendment depends largely on the language that we use. What does the language that we use mean and, more importantly, what does it mean in other EU countries with whom we shall be working on extradition in future—particularly Italy? I believe it is acknowledged that Italy has more people languishing in its gaols without the prospect of trial than almost any other European nation. I declare an interest in that I speak Italian, and have done for some time. Therefore, I particularly wish the Minister to bring his mind to bear upon the vital Italian word "prova". In Italian, "prova" means "trial". It also means "proof" or "testing". I understand that in the legal profession in Italy the word "prova" also means "the testing of legal evidence".
	It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House the Government's understanding of what the word "prova" will mean in Italy as regards the Bill. What will be the meaning of the Bill in Italy? What will be in the Italian magistrate's mind when he extradites someone from this country for prova in Italia? Does it mean what the noble Lord says it means? Will that person go straight for trial or for the well-known process of investigation by a visiting magistrate in Italy, when one might add the words, "God help him" in any case? However, so far as concerns the Bill, the Minister's answer may be useful, even at this stage.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 1 and to query a matter which seems to be accepted on all sides in the debate; that is, that "accused" means "charged".
	If there is a killing—a homicide—and someone is found in the same house with a blood-stained knife, it is almost certain that he will be taken into custody and arrested. So the question arises: why is he being arrested? One can take refuge in the formula that he has been arrested to assist police with their inquiries. One could say that he has been arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the homicide. But in ordinary parlance, surely, what one says is that he has been arrested because he is accused of the homicide. Whether the police go on to charge him within the four days allowed is a different matter but that he is being accused I should have thought was clear.
	Stupidly, I had not anticipated this point. I believe it may have arisen on the Criminal Justice Bill yesterday where we were extending the period during which someone can be detained without being charged if a terrorist offence is involved. How does one decide whether a terrorist offence is involved unless the man is accused of it? We should not assume that accused means charged. I think it means "in custody in connection with".

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall not detain the House, except to say that my noble friend Lord Pearson made an important point. The whole question of language, interpretation of language and the way various member states use certain words in the law is very much a consideration of this point. Quite frequently in the European Union, when it comes to the crucial point in discussion at which legislation is being worded there are problems of language. Our precision of language and the very large vocabulary of English makes us particularly sensitive to this point. Like French, Italian is a flexible language with a smaller vocabulary, so it is more often the fact than in English that one word can have several meanings. I believe that is the point made by my noble friend.
	In deciding this issue the House must not forget that we are discussing a measure which takes away the last moment of protection, the final stage protection, by the Home Secretary of a citizen of this country whose extradition is demanded. It is crucial to justice for our own citizens, as for other citizens in the European Union, that the wording of the Bill is in no way ambiguous. It is ambiguous and I am sure the Government should change it. I hope that the Minister will be more successful in persuading his colleagues than the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. I am sure she tried and that she understood the argument very well. I hope that he will try—perhaps he has tried—as it is a very important measure. I support Amendment No. 1.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, support Amendment No. 1. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, was correct. To get this right, we should be 150 per cent certain that the accused, or whoever it is—the criminal—will receive fair treatment. I would have thought that that was an amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, would be very happy to accept, which would then satisfy everyone.
	However, another point I should like to raise arises from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, regarding the Italians. Apparently, they are not very happy about this extradition warrant. Only today I read the EUobserver on-line and noted a report which stated that the European arrest warrant has caused splits within Italy's coalition. They became apparent yesterday as Justice Minister, Roberto Castelli, from the right-wing Northern League, exposed rifts between himself and the premier, Silvio Berlusconi over the European arrest warrant.
	It appears that the Justice Minister, Mr Castelli, did not approve of the European arrest warrant. It was only approved against his will by Signor Berlusconi. So, there are differences about the European arrest warrant within Italy and the Italian Government. Mr Castelli is concerned that the arrest warrant does not contain guarantees for the defence of the suspect. If the Italians of all people are concerned that the proper guarantees do not exist for the defence of the suspect, why on earth are we agreeing the European arrest warrant?
	We must also bear in mind that this legislation is due to come into effect on 1st January. I do not know how it can with two senior Italian Ministers quarrelling among themselves. Only three countries have so far approved the European arrest warrant. If the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, wants additional reasons for accepting the amendment, I hope that I have now provided them.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I start by associating myself with the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, about the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who handled the Bill in earlier proceedings in a wholly exemplary way.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and with all other speakers so far that it is clearly necessary that extradition should be used only for the purpose of a prosecution and not for the purpose of an investigation which might or might not lead to a prosecution. Where I find difficulty is in seeing how Amendment No. 1 achieves that purpose.
	The relevant passage, which is Clause 2(3)(b), states:
	"The Part 1 warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence".
	The argument so far seems to be based on the assumption that the warrant is issued with a view to arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory with a view to being prosecuted for the offence. That I think might be a different situation. But it seems to me that the only purpose for which extradition can be granted under Clause 2(3)(b) is,
	"for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence".
	For that reason, I am unable to see how Amendment No. 1 actually takes the matter forward any further.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will help me on this issue. I should have thought that the phrase,
	"for the purpose of being prosecuted",
	is considerably wider than "being charged with". It could involve interrogation or investigation and those would result in prosecution. Surely, "being charged with"—a charge—is a different thing. The words,
	"for the purpose of being prosecuted",
	strike me, as a complete layman, as being much more vague than the words "being charged with".

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, perhaps I may just reply to that. Of course, the charge is an event that happens at one particular point in time. It is possible, therefore, that someone is extradited who has already been charged. It is also possible that someone might be extradited for the purposes of a prosecution for which they have not yet been charged because the requesting country has never been in a position to further process the charge on them. So I do not think that "charge" is an appropriate word.
	Certainly, "prosecution" appears to be perfectly adequate. Investigation prior to a decision whether to go ahead with a prosecution is not sufficient.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I am very interested obviously in what the noble Lord says and I can see the logic of what he has said against my amendment. Given that he agreed that there is a potential problem, does he have a better amendment in mind?

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, no. On this particular point I do not. I think that the problem will arise only if it turns out that countries have been seeking extradition and when they achieve it they do not proceed to prosecution. Of course, for some years now it has not been necessary to produce a prima facie case before extradition is achieved under the Council of Europe convention. So far as I am aware, there is no evidence that this problem has raised its head.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for tabling his amendments and for his kindness in welcoming me back yet again to the Bill. I said goodbye so many times that even I got bored with apologising for returning. Regretfully, I do not think that I shall necessarily make him rejoice with my remarks.
	We all know what we want the clause to do: to allow extradition to take place only where there will be a prosecution. Clearly, we are talking about accusation not conviction cases. We believe that the clause as drafted has this effect. I add that the Extradition Act 1989 provides for extradition where a person "is accused" of an offence. We currently operate under legislation which has the same terminology and thrust. The Extradition Act 1989 goes no further than that.
	Our present legislation uses the term "is accused". That has not given rise to a problem. However, the Bill goes further than the 1989 Act.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. Does the noble Lord agree that the whole purpose of the Bill is to expedite extradition? He gave illustrations of the reduction in the average length of time for future extraditions. Does it not follow, therefore, that there are likely to be more extradition cases in the future? The fact that this has not happened in the past is not a guide to what will happen if there is a considerable increase in the number of extradition cases.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, it may do. We do not know. The Bill certainly intends to try to do two things. I am at risk of going back to a Second Reading speech at Third Reading. It is essentially trying to ensure that procedural reasons for avoiding extradition and facing trial for a properly laid charge can no longer be allowed to frustrate justice. We have heard the argument for that many times. It is important because international crime is increasing and to combat it there must be an effective means for extradition between civilised societies.
	However, as I shall develop in a moment when I speak to the issue in more detail, the Bill also puts in place powerful safeguards. So it does not seek to ride roughshod over the rights of someone who is sought for extradition; if anything, the power of the courts in this respect is strengthened. But the Bill actually says that the procedural delays that have been used—naturally enough by people who do not want to face trial, and that is what one would expect they should do—will be curtailed because it is not in the interests of justice that they are allowed to continue.
	So, as I was signalling, our present legislation uses the term "is accused". Notwithstanding that, the Bill goes further than the 1989 Act in saying that a warrant must have been issued,
	"for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence".
	I do not see how that can be ambiguous in any way. Of course the court, which makes the decision, must be satisfied that that is the case.
	We do not anticipate any difficulties regarding fishing trips or warrants issued for investigatory purposes. Extradition in accusation cases is for prosecution. That is the basis on which extradition is currently run with our international partners and that was the basis on which the European arrest warrant framework decision was agreed.
	If a warrant was issued for the purpose of investigation, it could not be certified or executed in the UK. It would not be a Part 1 warrant as defined in the Bill. For those reasons we believe that the Bill is correctly drafted. We are not being obdurate for the sake of it. My approach on Bills is always to give if we can actually abbreviate our purposes. But we do not see a flaw here: we do not see a problem.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Lord said that a warrant which is issued not for the purpose of trial but for the purpose of questioning will not be a Part 1 warrant. Is that really right? One requirement of a Part 1 warrant is that it contains a statement by the foreign authority as to the purpose for which it has been issued. The English court, surely, has no power to go behind that statement and investigate whether it is in fact true. That was the point I sought to make.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right on one level. In international and mutual recognition arrangements between civilised societies certain things have to be taken on trust until there is a basis for having doubts about them.
	It is not possible to look behind the statement of another country, which is a signatory to the ECHR, when it says, "This is what we want the person to do". It is not possible to do that now. There is no difference in what we are talking about now from the current law of the land in this respect. In order to show where there is a difference in this legislation let us take an example that was touched on. If a member state of the European Union, despite its obligations under ECHR, on a sequence of occasions sought to flout the explicit intent and meaning of the framework agreement, one would expect a defence advocate to make those arguments before the judge in any extradition request put before a court. They would clearly point to whether there was doubt or dubiety at all in those respects.
	However, generally—as I think that situation is unlikely to happen—certain things have to be taken on trust between civilised societies. Otherwise the consequence is that one could never expedite someone to another country—or they to us—to face trial. That is a very serious mischief. I do not need to spell it out.
	The second and third amendments tabled by the noble Lord would introduce a requirement that the requesting territory guarantee that the person will be prosecuted within six months of his extradition. The framework agreement does not include that requirement—nor does our current law or procedure. It would therefore be highly unlikely that any warrant would contain such a guarantee. Were those amendments to be passed, given that a request from another EU member state would not contain such a guarantee, that would mean that we could never extradite someone to another EU member state. That must be a massive mischief.
	Basically, if someone were sought for prosecution in France for an offence that he committed in France, because there was not exact synchronicity, he could never be extradited to France. That is not our current law and the Government's position is that such a law would be against the interests of justice and international efforts to combat criminality.
	The third amendment goes one step further. It would provide that the statement would have to say that the person would be prosecuted within six months of his extradition. Again, that would unilaterally impose extra conditions on other European Union states and then unilaterally impose a sanction on the requesting state.
	Far from strengthening the Bill, that would weaken it beyond all recognition. There may be reasons why the prosecution may legitimately take longer than six months to begin—for example, if the person is suffering from an extended illness or has sought extra time to prepare his defence. Writing such a provision into the Bill would give an opportunity to string out and delay the case.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for his signal; I shall not labour the point.
	I turn to some of the practical points that have been raised. I confirm that we are continuing to work with other member states on the operation of the European arrest warrant system, including the rights of arrested and extradited people. By that I mean no more than putting the framework agreement into law in member states; we have no reason to believe that other member states will not do so. It is also important that we try to ensure through inter-ministerial discussions and work through officials that the practice of the operation is as good as it should be in all member states.
	I now turn briefly to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay: Amendment No. 33. I am sympathetic to the principle behind it and do not think that there is a great deal of difference between our positions on the matter. However, the amendment is unnecessary. Let me explain why.
	Clause 157 provides that a magistrate may issue a search warrant for material believed to be evidence of the extradition offence for which the person is sought. The amendment rightly picks up on a concern discussed in the House that searches should be carried out only for the purpose of obtaining specific evidence for use in the prosecution of a person wanted for an extradition offence. Searches should not be used as an excuse for wider "fishing trips" for evidence on behalf of the requesting country.
	We agree that extradition should be sought only for the purposes of prosecution and that the conduct of any search and seizure operation under the Bill must support that principle. That is why we included a section in the draft extradition code of practice—which the noble Baroness has adopted as the basis for the amendment—advising officers that searches should not constitute investigation of the extradition offence. I am pleased to accept that we shall redraft the code of practice; we are considering which of the suggested formulations to adopt. We want to make that as clear as possible, so that the distinction between investigating an offence and gathering evidence for the prosecution is understood by everyone. We take that point, but the code of practice is where that should be focused.
	As drafted, Clause 157 provides that an officer applying for a search and seizure warrant must explicitly state the material sought and the premises where that material is believed to be. We therefore believe that the clause provides sufficient safeguards, buttressed by a clear code of practice, on which we commit to work. Officers searching under Clause 157 will be authorised to search for and seize only material specified in the warrant.
	I turn to some of the many interesting and important points raised in the debate. I have discussed "fishing trips". The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is right; he has got me there; my Italian does not go much further than what I have learnt from Mozart and Verdi. Of course, that is not the point; he asked how other countries incorporate international agreements into their law to ensure that they have encapsulated their spirit. I am not an expert on that, but I know that there are such experts—I am not sure whether they are called jurists—who, between them, have detailed knowledge of the meaning of international law.
	While I am discussing Italy, as for Signor Castelli, whom I have met several times in my present and future roles, I have not heard that the Italians have any doubts about the issue. I should be surprised were they not to sign, given that they have the presidency. They have already agreed it; so they are already on charge to legislate to do so. They already have an international commitment to do so. If the point that the noble Lord was making—this is at third hand—was that there are concerns, the fact that signatories to it are all signatories to the ECHR gives fairly strong buttresses on bail, rights to translation, and so on. I need not continue.
	I have covered most of the issues—if not to everyone's satisfaction. I return to the emphasis. We seek to continue extradition with other member states and to strip out only time-wasting delays that have sought to frustrate people being brought to justice. We have stronger protection in the Bill than in current legislation, by giving the judge powers to be satisfied that someone taken to trial will be met with ECHR conditions. That is progress, not reversal; that is why, with regret, I cannot support the amendments.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, as it was me who rather unexpectedly found myself moving Amendment No. 1, it is my duty to respond to the Minister.
	First, I associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the working relationship that we have had with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, on the Bill. We met her yesterday to discuss matters not covered by today's amendments concerning the Bill's further progress. That meeting was as constructive as has been every previous meeting—in other words, very constructive.
	In tabling Amendment No. 1, as he pointed out, my noble friend was careful to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, at a previous stage. I agreed that that drafting was appropriate. I agree entirely with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that we need to be 150 per cent sure in this part of the Bill about what we mean. We must be as explicit and unambiguous as possible.
	Part 1 provides a new system of extradition, which all of us want to proceed in as fair and speedy a way as possible, while affecting only those who should properly be caught by extradition law. That is the problem: how we ensure that only those who are properly caught by it are so covered.
	By a system almost of osmosis, I have been able to discern from my noble friend that, although the Minister has, as ever, been eloquent in his defence of the Government's position, we do not feel that he has sufficiently reassured us on Amendment No. 1—although he has on the other three amendments in the group. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 161.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
	Clause 4 [Person arrested under Part 1 warrant]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 3, line 30, leave out from beginning to first "as" in line 31 and insert "A copy of the warrant must be given to the person"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland. Although they are government amendments, they could probably more accurately, and with great courtesy, be described as "Bledisloe amendments", as they closely reflect the suggestions made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, to whom I pay tribute.
	Noble Lords will recall that the Bill was amended on Report to provide that any person arrested in an extradition case has the right to be shown a copy of the warrant. That was welcomed by noble Lords, but the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, suggested that we should go a bit further and make the requirement that the person should be given a copy of the warrant. We are happy to accommodate that suggestion; that is the effect of Amendments Nos. 4, 9, 22 and 26. They impose a requirement that a person must be given a copy of the warrant as soon as practicable after arrest.
	In the light of this stricter requirement, we are also adopting another of the noble Viscount's suggestions. The House may recall that the Bill as currently drafted provides that failure to comply with the obligation to show or give the warrant to the person at the earliest possible moment leads to an entitlement to automatic discharge. The noble Viscount suggested that there is a world of difference between an inadvertent failure in a busy police station to give the person a warrant for a couple of hours and a deliberate attempt to deprive the person of the warrant.
	The noble Viscount suggested, therefore—and we strongly agree—that the matter should be brought before the district judge who has discretion over whether the person should be discharged, depending on the facts of the case. In reaching a decision, the judge can decide how serious the failure to comply with the obligation was. I trust that the House will welcome the amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, we are grateful to the Government for this concession which, as the Minister said, reflects discussions in Committee and on Report. There was concern on all sides of the House that the person should be given a copy of the warrant as soon as practicable. I also note that the amendment is a response to the suggestion made on page 8 of the responses to the consultation on the draft code of practice. It would be best practice if, after arrest, the custody officer is required to give the person a copy of the warrant to read and retain. We support the changes and thank the Government for them.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, after the Minister's over-generous remarks, I cannot miss this opportunity of thanking him for adopting the suggestions and for bringing them forward. In particular, I find it desirable that the judge should have a discretion when there has been inadvertence, rather than a serious criminal being released because of some procedural matter that has made no practical difference. I thank the Minister very much.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we support these amendments now as we have done at earlier stages.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Filkin: moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 7:
	Page 3, line 34, at end insert—
	"(3A) If subsection (2) is not complied with and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge may order his discharge." Page 3, line 35, leave out "(2) or"
	Page 3, line 39, after "subsection" insert "(3A) or"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 5 [Provisional Arrest]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 4, line 3, leave out "reason to believe" and insert "reasonable grounds for believing"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, in moving this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 21, 25 and 32, and Amendments Nos. 35 to 37. I shall be brief, because we are giving effect to a government concession.
	At various places in the Bill, police officers and judges are required to act if they have "reason to believe" certain things to be the case. Various noble Lords have suggested that it might be better if the test were based on a requirement for "reasonable grounds for belief". We are happy to accommodate that suggestion, which is the purpose and effect of these amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, we welcome this government amendment, which is in response to one put forward in Committee and on Report, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, as well as noble Lords on these Benches.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 6 [Person arrested under section 5]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendments Nos. 9 to 13:
	Page 4, line 34, leave out from beginning to "to" and insert "A copy of the warrant must be given"
	Page 4, line 36, leave out "or (5)"
	Page 4, line 37, at end insert—
	"(6A) If subsection (5) is not complied with and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge may order his discharge." Page 4, line 40, at end insert "or (6A)"
	Page 5, line 1, at end insert "or (6A)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 8 [Remand etc]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Page 6, line 13, leave out "there are exceptional circumstances" and insert "it to be in the interests of justice to do so"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I can again be brief. The announcement on Report that we would make these concessions was welcome. As currently drafted, the Bill allows for the extradition hearing to be postponed when the judge considers there to be exceptional circumstances. The noble Lord and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, made considerable contributions to earlier stages of the Bill. He suggested that the clause be altered to allow for postponements when it is in the interests of justice. We are happy to agree with that suggestion, which is the purpose of the amendments.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I rise to thank the Government for this amendment and for picking up the wording originally brought to the Committee by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden in an amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Anelay and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We are happy with what is now proposed.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 55 [Request for consent to other offence being dealt with]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Page 28, line 18, leave out "there are exceptional circumstances" and insert "it to be in the interests of justice to do so"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 57 [Request for consent to further extradition to category 1 territory]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 29, line 35, leave out "there are exceptional circumstances" and insert "it to be in the interests of justice to do so"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 60 [Return of person to serve remainder of sentence]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Page 32, line 8, after "sentence" insert "if and"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 31. Briefly, these are drafting amendments. The Bill will allow us for the first time temporarily to extradite serving UK prisoners to stand trial abroad. The Bill provides that time spent abroad does not count against the UK sentence because otherwise the person would be credited twice for the same custody time. The one exception to that is that, following a suggestion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, time spent abroad does count against the UK sentence if the person is not convicted at the overseas trial. I am grateful for that point, because, clearly, it is in the interests of justice. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: moved Amendment No. 18:
	After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
	"COMMENCEMENT OF PART 1 (NO. 1)
	This Part shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament confirming that all category 1 territories have demonstrated that they have an effective system of legal aid."

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 to 20. The three amendments delay the commencement of the Bill with reference to three considerations: legal aid, translation facilities for the accused and the existence of a proper system of Euro bail—a system designed to ensure that foreigners are treated in exactly the same way for bail purposes as nationals of the countries in which they are detained.
	The European arrest warrant and the framework document have been justified as creating one judicial and legal space. I do not know whether the Government would go along with that. However, it would follow that, if we are to have one legal space, we should have one broadly similar system of bail.
	There is a flaw in the Government's approach in the Bill. They do not acknowledge that a foreigner is, for several reasons, naturally at a disadvantage in a foreign court. A foreigner in a UK court would also be at a certain disadvantage. Such people can be at a disadvantage because they cannot get bail or legal aid, and may simply not understand what is going on in the court because they do not speak the language. That is why we have to be careful about extradition. We have to have a series of thresholds. That is why we do not extradite for insignificant offences. It is why, in the past, we have had the principle of double criminality. There are risks of injustice occurring through the process of extradition. As I said, we must recognise that the risks that are always there can be increased when a person faces justice abroad, and that person may be innocent.
	Amendment No. 18 refers to legal aid. One of the disturbing considerations in our arguments about the European arrest warrant is the absence of legal aid in quite a number of European countries. Many Mediterranean countries—Spain, Greece and Portugal—do not have adequate systems of legal aid. How can we have a system of adequate justice if there is no adequate legal aid?
	That was clearly illustrated in the case of the plane spotters in Greece, which has been rather brushed aside on the grounds that it was not actually extradition. However, the case illustrates a number of issues that could easily arise with accelerated extradition procedures, as provided for in the legislation. Amendment No. 18 provides that the Secretary of State should conduct an investigation and lay before Parliament a report about legal aid within the area covered by the arrest warrant.
	Amendment No. 19 adopts a similar approach but with respect to translation facilities. Fair Trials Abroad has highlighted how foreigners or British citizens in European courts often find that they do not have adequate translation facilities during court proceedings or for the translation of documents. Under the European Convention, in theory, there are certain provisions relating to translating facilities.
	Fair Trials Abroad says that it has never come across a case in France where adequate facilities have been provided. It has also made extremely serious criticisms of what happens in Portugal. I understand that in Finland the cost of translation falls on the accused, although sometimes some legal aid may be available for part of the cost. I remember watching on television recently a documentary about Geoffrey Boycott—I am not seeking to comment on the case—who found himself accused in a French court of domestic violence. He was found guilty. When he came out he said that he had not understood a word of the proceedings, which seemed a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. Anyone accused, appearing in court, should have simultaneous translation. Again, the approach in the amendment is that a report should be placed before the House.
	Amendment No. 20 refers to bail and has a completely different approach. It would be insufficient just to have a report laid before the House. With respect to a person standing trial in another country, the problem is that there may be prejudice against him being given bail simply on the grounds that, because he is a foreigner, the courts think that he may abscond and, therefore, they would have to go through all the business of re-extraditing him. As has been advocated by many people, including, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and Fair Trials Abroad, one way of dealing with that situation would be to have a system of "Euro bail". This is the first time for a long time that I have advocated a measure of European integration, but it illustrates how one European problem leads to another. This is a very serious problem from the point of view of justice.
	The whole concept of Euro bail would be that bail would be made available to non-nationals on the same basis as though they were nationals of that country; that is, the risk of flight out of the country would not be a major consideration. Euro bail would be accompanied by a system whereby the country from which the accused came would be obliged to re-extradite him if he absconded. The three issues of bail, translation and legal aid are very important and bring out one of the fundamental problems of the Bill, which is that a person standing trial in another country faces certain natural disadvantages. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I support my noble friend, particularly on Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. If the Minister cannot assure us that, for certain, anyone being extradited to any member state would be able to have legal aid and simultaneous translation, the whole concept is flawed. That applies not only to the present European Union but also to when the next two waves of members come in. We are probably some distance from being able to ensure that in some of those countries. The Minister must give us that assurance or we should be very concerned.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I cannot support the concept of the amendments; namely, that the entire Part 1 shall not come into force until these things have happened. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, raised a very valid point. The necessity for these provisions and, in particular, the whole issue of an agreement for "Euro bail" is a matter which affects not merely those extradited—indeed, not principally those extradited—but those arrested in a foreign country who do not need extradition because they were arrested and kept there.
	One can quite understand a foreign country saying, "There is no point in my giving you bail because the only point of you having bail is to go back home and get on with your job until the trial comes on. But once you have gone back there, I have got no way of getting you back without going through the whole process of extradition". Therefore, one can understand a reluctance to grant bail to foreigners. However, it means that it is grossly unfair and very oppressive on those who are arrested in foreign countries or on those who are extradited. I strongly urge the Minister to do everything he can to forward the cause of the Euro bail agreement.
	I agree that it is a different matter, but its desirability is surely finally and totally demonstrated by the fact that we have no less a Euro-sceptic than the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, strongly pressing for a Euro agreement. In those circumstances, it must be right.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, my noble friend has raised the very important issue of the relative advantage or disadvantage of someone in a foreign court, whether it be a UK citizen overseas or an overseas citizen in the UK. He has done so against a background of the importance of legal aid, adequate translation and bail. For those of us who have received briefing from Fair Trials Abroad and other organisations, clearly there are some important points and issues to be addressed. We look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
	My noble friend might be able to comfort himself somewhat that, as a result of points made by him and others in Committee and on Report, Clause 22, entitled, "Minimum procedural rights", now offers some protection and prevention. It particularly allows the Secretary of State to monitor subsequent conduct in different territories and, where that conduct falls short, to draw that fact to the attention of a judge in subsequent cases. Those improvements that have come about, I think, through the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, have gone a long way to meeting that which my noble friend is seeking. Nevertheless, there is still an issue here to be answered by the Government.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of Fair Trials Abroad. On this occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will find me much more supportive than I was on his first group of amendments. While my support might not necessarily go so far as to support him in the Division Lobby if he chooses to divide the House, the principle behind these amendments is absolutely vital.
	Fair Trials Abroad has found that the two main problems encountered by people facing trial in foreign countries, in particular in the European Union, are the absence of proper legal aid and the lack of competent translation and interpretation facilities. I wish to make a minor point: I would not go so far as to say that simultaneous interpretation is necessary. That would require fairly high-powered electronic equipment to be made available in each courtroom. I should have thought that competent sequential translation would be adequate. However, there is no doubt that the absence of legal aid and lack of interpretation facilities are serious problems.
	I recognise that both elements are referred to specifically in Article 6.3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. If it becomes apparent that in certain countries the rights of people who are extradited are not being respected, then obviously it will be possible, under the terms of Clause 21, to object to extradition on the grounds that the convention rights of the person to be extradited will not be met. That will depend on evidence being provided to establish a case for that purpose.
	I regret that it did not prove possible to reach a European framework decision on minimum standards of procedure. That would have provided a valuable balance to the contents of the European framework decision that led to the European arrest warrant.
	I would be even more enthusiastic about the idea of establishing "Euro bail", because that issue causes real hardship in a significant number of cases. There is no doubt that in a number of countries there is a natural tendency not to grant bail to someone who is a foreigner and who may therefore disappear home. The country could not be certain of getting the person back, and even if it did get him back it would be only after a lengthy struggle. If that is coupled with lengthy periods of detention before trial, the problem would be doubled.
	Certainly Fair Trials Abroad has come across a number of cases where people have been detained for very long periods before trial, at the end of which sometimes they have been found innocent. Particular problems have arisen in Spain with cases involving lorry drivers. From time to time, lorry drivers are found transporting drugs or other contraband in the backs of their lorries which they claim—sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly—they have been carrying without their knowledge. They are detained for long periods in a foreign country; they are not given bail, and often their families cannot afford to travel out to the country to visit them, which increases their hardship yet further.
	I understand that discussions are being held with the countries of the European Union which seek to establish some kind of Euro bail system, but that they are still at a preliminary stage. It is important that those talks should be pressed and I hope very much that the Government will be able to express their intention to push for a Euro bail system. It would mean that if someone jumps bail, they would be automatically returned to the country from which they were bailed. In due course—I hope sooner rather than later—I hope that we will be able to establish a Euro bail system.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for introducing this debate because in a sense it covers one of the central themes of our discussions on the Bill. It is right and proper that we come back to it at the final stage in this House.
	We have been extraditing to other European Union and Council of Europe countries for over 100 years. Never before have we required a Secretary of State to produce a report on those countries' criminal justice systems.
	The single most significant change to extradition procedures to Council of Europe countries came with the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. That legislation paved the way for the removal of the requirement for those countries to produce prima facie evidence. Essentially, we operate on mutual recognition between ourselves and other civilised states which we believe uphold the basic principles of the law. Yet that important change was not conditional on a report on various aspects of the criminal justice systems of the countries concerned. Nevertheless, one might say that times have changed and that the burden is still on the Government to consider whether that is good enough.
	Let us look at what the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has specifically proposed in his amendments. While I do not wish to raise hopes, let us pretend for the sake of argument that the Government agreed and produced a report that said that the system in the extraditing country was acceptable. While that may or may not be of comfort, it would not guarantee that, in the future, the system would not change. A snapshot judgment would have been made at a particular point in time about the criminal justice system in another European country.
	For that reason and for other more fundamental reasons, we have not taken that route. Rather, we have chosen a substantially better route to ensure that someone who is sought for extradition has their basic rights met. A number of noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment have already signposted how powerful those terms are as they are currently set out in the Bill.
	First, Clause 21 ensures that a judge will make the decision on whether to agree to an extradition; it is not for a Minister to decide. That responsibility is placed very firmly on a judge. The clause states:
	"If the judge is required to proceed under this section . . . he must decide whether the person's extradition would be compatible with the Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998".
	If the judge is not so satisfied at the specific time and with regard to the specific person before him that their convention rights would be met, he must not agree to extradite.
	The Bills goes further in Clause 22 by providing that:
	"In reaching a decision under section 21(1) the judge shall have particular regard to the person's Convention rights and Article 6.3 of the European Convention on Human Rights".
	If he needed to do so, although it would be most unlikely, the judge would look at the article, which covers the right to a fair trial. The position is made explicit:
	"Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
	(a) to be informed promptly in a language which he understands; . . .
	(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require".
	The last point is relevant to our discussion:
	"(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in the courts".
	Those decisions will not be in the Government's power; they will be the responsibility of the judge.
	Noble Lords know how the system will operate. We have an expert Bar that will deal with extradition cases and it is self-evident that, when the Bill is passed into law, counsel will use these measures powerfully. Arguments will be put before the judge if there is evidence to support the assertion that, in country X or Y, convention rights will not be met. If my memory serves me right, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised concerns about whether, having closed some loopholes, one might be at risk of creating another great panjandrum of defence around this.
	But we are where we are—and we are at the right place. The Bill could not be clearer in seeking to give a mechanism to the judge to decide, in the specific instances of a particular case before him, whether the convention rights would be met. Without labouring the point, the Bill is as powerful as it possibly could be to meet the aims that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, seeks to achieve.
	As to Eurobail, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, negotiations are at a very early stage. I cannot say whether anything will come of them but the UK will play a full part in such negotiations. When we referred to Eurobail previously, we came to the view in Committee that in itself it would not necessarily assist in this case because it would require the fugitive to be transferred twice between the two countries and there were technical reasons why its application may be considered inappropriate in this context.
	Be that as it may, the central point is that the Bill could not be clearer in terms of giving a defendant who does not think that he will get a fair trial the strongest possible forum to advance that argument in a court of this country before a judge who is charged very specifically under the Bill. For these reasons, I hope that I have put at rest the minds of at least some Members of the House.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his support. His announcement that he would not join me in the Division Lobbies reminds me of Talleyrand's remark that he had heard a speech often that changed his mind, but his vote never.
	As regards the issues of translation and bail, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for the example that he gave of the plight in which lorry drivers find themselves in many European countries. There are few Members of the House of Commons who do not have constituents who have fallen into such a situation.
	The noble Lord referred to Spain being a particular problem. Again, I am deeply disappointed that the Foreign Office is so obdurate about not giving information with regard to British citizens who have been detained in Spain and whether they have been charged or subsequently released without being charged. It is incredible that we can discuss these issues without officials in the Foreign Office being prepared to take off their jackets, do some work and give Parliament answers to questions in the normal way in which other departments have to answer questions. Those in the Foreign Office sometimes believe that they are far too grand to answer questions in Parliament.
	The Minister referred—as he and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, have done throughout the passage of the Bill—to the European convention. He quite fairly rehearsed the rights that a person accused in a continental court would have under the convention. Those rights exist but, as regards legal aid and translation facilities, they seem to have had no effect whatever in raising standards. As I said, legal aid does not exist in most Mediterranean countries and translation facilities are not available in France, Portugal and Spain.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify one point. I have been in correspondence with a former trustee of Fair Trials Abroad about the situation in France, where translation facilities are available but their quality falls short.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, if I recall rightly, Fair Trials Abroad states on its website that in the cases that have come to it—which, of course, are not necessarily typical but are cases that, by definition, have a problem—it has not come across one that came up to the standards required. That is what the noble Lord—I see that he is nodding—will see on the website. Certainly it gives many, many examples.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, if it is as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, says it is and a judge, on the evidence put before him, thinks that that case is made, he will refuse to extradite.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, yes, although what good that will be to a lorry driver who is arrested while driving through Spain, I do not know. I agree that that does not come under the Bill.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, we are talking about extradition. That is what the Bill is about.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I totally accept that. I conceded that in my reply to the Minister. However, I am not entirely persuaded that a lorry driver threatened with extradition will be able to challenge on those grounds and will have the assistance of noble and learned Lords from this House. But we shall see.
	The Minister also said that we have been extraditing people for 100 years. The conditions under which we have extradited people to continental Europe over 100 years have progressively changed. The prima facie rule, as Ministers have constantly reminded us, disappeared in 1989. That was a big change. We are now in a situation where Ministers are seeking to accelerate the process and to very much reduce the length of time that extradition cases take. As I have observed before, that is likely to mean that there will be more extradition cases.
	As the Minister quite rightly pointed out, some countries have not even made requests for extradition because they feared the British system was so lengthy. That has been one of the arguments for the Bill. If correct, it will mean that people on the Continent will be less reluctant to make requests for extradition from this country. So there will be more extradition cases. If there are more extradition cases, and if these are genuine issues—as a number of people have said they are—they will arise again and again.
	We have debated this matter several times. I am disappointed with the Minister's reply—although I am grateful, as always, for his courtesy and the information he has given me—but I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
	Clause 72 [Arrest warrant following extradition request]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Page 40, line 7, leave out "it appears to the judge" and insert "the judge has reasonable grounds for believing"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 73 [Person arrested under section 72]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendments Nos. 22 to 24:
	Page 41, line 1, leave out from beginning to first "as" in line 2 and insert "A copy of the warrant must be given to the person"
	Page 41, line 9, at end insert—
	"(4A) If subsection (2) is not complied with and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge may order his discharge." Page 41, line 10, leave out "(2) or"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 74 [Provisional warrant]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 25:
	Page 41, line 37, leave out "it appears to him" and insert "he has reasonable grounds for believing"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 75 [Person arrested under provisional warrant]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendments Nos. 26 to 28:
	Page 42, line 40, leave out from beginning to first "as" in line 41 and insert "A copy of the warrant must be given to the person"
	Page 43, line 4, at end insert—
	"(4A) If subsection (2) is not complied with and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge may order his discharge." Page 43, line 5, leave out "(2) or"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 76 [Date of extradition hearing: arrest under section 72]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 29:
	Page 43, line 41, leave out "there are exceptional circumstances" and insert "it to be in the interests of justice to do so"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 77 [Date of extradition hearing: arrest under provisional warrant]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 30:
	Page 44, line 15, leave out "there are exceptional circumstances" and insert "it to be in the interests of justice to do so"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 133 [Return of person to serve remainder of sentence]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 31:
	Page 72, line 18, after "sentence" insert "if and"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 143 [Issue of Part 3 warrant]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 32:
	Page 79, line 10, leave out "is reason to believe" and insert "are reasonable grounds for believing"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 157 [Search and seizure warrants]:
	[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
	Clause 163 [Entry and search of premises on arrest]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 34:
	Page 92, line 20, leave out "reason to believe" and insert "reasonable grounds for believing"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 165 [Entry and search of premises after arrest]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 35:
	Page 94, line 9, leave out "reason to believe" and insert "reasonable grounds for believing"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 173 [Delivery of seized property]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendments Nos. 36 and 37:
	Page 98, line 42, leave out "reason to believe" and insert "reasonable grounds for believing"
	Page 99, line 13, leave out "reason to believe" and insert "reasonable grounds for believing"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 188 [Re-extradition hearing]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 38:
	Page 107, line 30, leave out "the person must be taken to be discharged" and insert "and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge must order his discharge"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I can be brief. In moving Amendment No. 38, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 39, both of which stand in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal.
	On Report, we removed the various references in the Bill to "taken to be discharged" and instead provided for an automatic right of discharge where the appropriate time limits are breached. I fear we missed one reference to "taken to be discharged" and the amendment seeks to correct that omission.
	This is not a resigning matter for either Ministers or officials, but I regret that we did not spot it earlier. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Page 107, line 33, leave out "taken to be"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 213 [Article 95 alerts: transitional provision]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 40:
	Page 122, line 12, leave out "and 50(3)(b)" and insert ", 50(3)(b), 191(3) and 192(2)(a)"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment which is consequential on government amendments that the House agreed on Report. I apologise for the fact that the omission was not picked up then. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
	The Bill is longer and better than it was when it entered the House by almost 250 amendments. I thank all Members of the House who have contributed to the process. We had a good Committee process and some proper challenges. I pay particular tribute to noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite, who worked purposefully on the Bill, and to the officials who have supported us. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Filkin.)
	On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Anti-social Behaviour Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, before the Deputy Speaker calls the next group of amendments, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that, Her Majesty having been informed of the purport of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Bill read a third time.
	Clause 14 [Security of tenure: anti-social behaviour]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 14, line 21, at end insert—
	"( ) Section 83 of that Act is amended as follows—
	(a) in subsection (1) for the words from "the possession" to the second "tenancy" substitute "an order mentioned in section 82(1A)";
	(b) in subsection (2)(b) for the words from "an order" to "tenancy" substitute "the order";
	(c) after subsection (4) insert—
	"(4A) If the proceedings are for a demotion order under section 82A the notice—
	(a) must specify the date after which the proceedings may be begun;
	(b) ceases to be in force twelve months after the date so specified.";
	(d) in subsection (5) for "or (4)" substitute "(4) or (4A)"."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, at Report, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the issue of whether landlords were required to issue a notice to tenants informing them of the intention to seek a demotion order.
	Demotions seek to be a preventive tool, as well as a final warning to tenants. In some cases, only the threat of loss of security of tenure is sufficient to make tenants realise the seriousness of their actions. Receiving a notice of the landlord's intention to seek demotion will impress upon the tenant that the landlord means business. In some cases, it may be sufficient on its own to bring about a change in behaviour and enable the landlord to avoid legal action altogether. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, require landlords to serve notice before issuing demotion proceedings and specify the information which the notice should contain.
	I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for bringing this matter to our attention and enabling the Government to bring forward these amendments.
	I shall refrain from making any comments on the amendments grouped with Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 until they have been spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I must apologise to the House regarding Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I noticed last night that, in translation, an error had crept in. I was about to ask for them to be withdrawn but there was a conversation with the Bill team and I understand that the Minister has an answer to what the amendments should have been. Given that this is the last stage of the Bill, I am grateful for his help. However, I apologise to all concerned. The amendments should say "should only" instead of "shall"—it makes rather a difference.
	The amendments are to the clause covering proceedings for possession. They were tabled to make a request for guidance to the effect that fast-track eviction proceedings available for demoted tenancies should be used not for any reason other than for further anti-social behaviour.
	We referred to this issue at Report; I expressed concern that tenants whose tenancy had been reduced to a demoted tenancy could, at the next stage, lose their homes as a result of a breach of more stringent tenancy conditions such as rent arrears. I am told by Shelter that this happens in the case of tenants placed on introductory or starter tenancies, where there are many parallels.
	At Report, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, suggested that a landlord who put his energy into seeking a demoted tenancy would do so because it would be a real chance to work with the tenant to improve behaviour. Of course, we all hope that that would be the effect of demotion. The noble Lord said that that kind of landlord would not subsequently seek to end the demoted tenancy on a whim. I am told by Shelter that it would like to share the Minister's view but, on the basis of its experience, it is unable to do so. So I am asking for an assurance that guidance will make it clear that final possession of a demoted tenancy should be sought only for further behaviour capable of causing nuisance or annoyance.
	It is easy for landlords to evict tenants under the parallel introductory tenancy regime. The court there has no discretion and the landlord simply follows the fast-track procedure. I hope that the Minister can provide some assistance at this late stage.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for listening to what we said about demotion orders. I thank the noble Baroness in particular for the two letters she wrote on the subject—one to myself on 5th November and one to my noble friend Lady Hamwee on 11th November. They set out very clearly how the Government saw this development occurring and how the threat of the demotion order would, in many cases, be quite sufficient to enable the tenant to comply with reasonable conduct and not to need the imposition of the demotion order.
	As a result of the Government's amendment, we very much hope that many tenants who would otherwise have received demotion orders will be heedful of the notice which will precede it and it will never become necessary to serve the order. We are most grateful to the Government for the consideration of the arguments that were made on Report.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his kind words. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for the way in which he has conducted himself during the course of the Bill's proceedings in raising important and sharp points.
	I shall now respond to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I suppose, in a sense, I am agreeing with the noble Baroness that her amendments are defective. They would not achieve their aim, which appears to be that demoted tenancies might be ended only for a further instance of anti-social behaviour.
	Placing the amendments in Clause 16 is an error. Clause 16 deals with the discretion a court may exercise, while the amendments seek to deal with the discretion that a landlord may exercise. Clause 16 deals with the court's discretion to grant a possession order on the existing grounds of nuisance under Section 84 of the Housing Act 1985 in respect of secure tenants or under Section 7 of the Housing Act 1988 in respect of assured tenants.
	The amendments are rather curious in respect of local authority demoted tenants, because Section 84 of the Housing Act 1985 does not apply to the ending of a demoted tenancy because demoted tenants are not secure tenants. Section 7 of the Housing Act 1988 does apply to demoted assured shorthold tenants but, if the landlord was seeking possession using ground 2 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, he would already need to provide evidence of anti-social behaviour. It would then be a matter for the court to decide whether to exercise its discretion to grant the possession order.
	Irrespective of the drafting issues, I can see that the noble Baroness is seeking to require landlords to act in accordance with statutory guidance to the effect that the landlord should seek possession of a demoted tenancy only where there has been a further instance of anti-social behaviour rather than for any other reason, such as rent arrears.
	The Government do not support such an approach in any event. A demoted tenancy is just that—a lesser form of tenancy where the tenant has forfeited certain rights. Once those rights are forfeited, it is our intention that tenants can regain them only by proving that they are responsible enough to be in receipt of those rights. That includes a general obligation to maintain their tenancy responsibly.
	Landlords seeking to end a demoted tenancy do not need to use the "nuisance" grounds for possession in any event. Both local authority demoted tenancies and demoted assured shorthold tenancies can be ended without proof of anti-social behaviour. In the case of local authority demoted tenancies, the landlord has to follow the procedure set out in the new Sections 143D, 143E and 143F, introduced into the Housing Act 1996 by Schedule 1 of the Bill.
	In the case of demoted assured shorthold tenancies, registered social landlords are automatically entitled to a possession order if they have given a required notice under Section 21 of the Housing Act 1998. That is usually a two-month notice. For the demoted tenancy to have a deterrent effect, tenants must be under no illusion that the effect of demotion orders is that they receive a very insecure form of tenancy. The onus is then on them to prove to their landlord's satisfaction that they are responsible tenants. If the landlord is not satisfied for any reason, including the accumulation of rent arrears, the tenancy may—and "may" is the important word—be ended swiftly.
	I hear what the noble Baroness says on the matter. There is a disagreement between us, but in this grouping we have gone some way to helping noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am grateful to our colleagues from the Liberal Democrat Benches for their support in part of what they are doing, but there are areas of policy in which we frankly disagree; and this is one of them.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 15, line 1, at end insert—
	"(4A) The court must not entertain proceedings for a demotion order unless—
	(a) the landlord has served on the tenant a notice under subsection (4B), or
	(b) the court thinks it is just and equitable to dispense with the requirement of the notice.
	(4B) The notice must—
	(a) give particulars of the conduct in respect of which the order is sought;
	(b) state that the proceedings will not begin before the date specified in the notice;
	(c) state that the proceedings will not begin after the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the date of service of the notice.
	(4C) The date specified for the purposes of subsection (4B)(b) must not be before the end of the period of two weeks beginning with the date of service of the notice."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 16 [Proceedings for possession: anti-social behaviour]:
	[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
	Clause 36 [Interpretation]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 30, line 1, leave out "a district council,"

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Government made a valuable concession at Report stage, in relation to dispersal orders, when they agreed that dispersal orders could be made only by the police in agreement with the relevant local authority. That was most welcome. I can well understand the Government's reluctance for more than one local authority to be involved in the agreement. However, the question that I am not sure that we addressed with sufficient keenness is whether it is appropriate in all circumstances that that authority is the district council or the county council. I shall seek to argue that it should be the county council, if only to have the pleasure of hearing the Minister telling me why it should be the district council.
	The fact of the matter is that in shire areas where there are two tiers of authority, the bulk of local government services are provided by the county council. County councils have the sole statutory responsibility at local authority level for services that will largely be involved with the key groups of people who are most likely to be dispersed. They have sole responsibility for young offenders, for social care including that of vulnerable adults and people with mental health issues, and for child protection and truancy. Those people would all be prime candidates for the possibility of being required to move on.
	County councils have the lead statutory responsibility for the provision of youth offending services in a local authority area. In the case of juveniles who might offend against an order to move on by subsequently coming back into the area, the Minister made it clear on Report that, as they cannot be locked up, they will be subject to community sentencing, a fine, or a discharge if that were appropriate. The county councils have the key function in relation to youth justice, so it could be questioned whether they were the appropriate authority. It would be much more appropriate if orders designating areas in which people could be dispersed were made immediately with the authority with the responsibility for providing the statutory service to enforce the consequences of the orders being broken.
	County councils are also responsible for co-ordination of the national drug strategy and local drug action teams, and so on. There is a long list of reasons why the county councils, which deal with the relevant local government services, are going to be most affected by the dispersal orders if anything goes wrong. I thought it was worth moving the amendment in order to get county councils involved in the process of designating areas where people can be dispersed. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand why the noble Lord has tabled Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, but they do not deliver exactly what he would like. The amendments would require the police to seek agreement from the county council, not the district council, before granting an authorisation.
	Amendment No. 5 would remove the need for a district council in a two-tier area to give its agreement to the authorisation of the use of powers under Part 4 of the Bill. Amendment No. 6 would replace the need for district councils to give their consent with a requirement for county councils to give their consent instead. When we made our last amendment, I understood the need to include county councils. However, I am not sure that it is right in this case to expunge district councils.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, for the sake of clarity, I should say that I put the amendments deliberately in that form because of the Government's reluctance to have to consult more than one local authority.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have considered carefully the points made by the noble Lord in previous debates and this evening. We also recognise that organisations such as the County Councils Network are seeking to work constructively with the Government to drive forward and to tackle anti-social behaviour. We are very grateful to those organisations for their efforts.
	We are keen to encourage county councils to play their proper part and welcome their engagement in these issues. However, on this specific point we remain of the view that the authorisation process as set out in the Bill is the most appropriate. District councils are those bodies that sit on crime and disorder reduction partnerships in all areas and are therefore, we respectfully suggest, best placed to work directly with the police when deciding whether an authorisation is needed in a particular area.
	In addition, we may be talking about authorising the use of dispersal powers in relatively small parts of a village, town or city. In such circumstances the lower-tier authority—the district council—is likely to be best placed to assist the police in making that judgment. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that the Government have sought to address the issues that he has raised and that in no way do we seek to diminish the importance of county councils, or the work that they do with such success.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that at no time did I think that the Government had any intention of diminishing the authority and responsibility of county councils. I also hear what she said about the crime and disorder partnerships and working with district councils, which creates a close relationship between the district councils and the police.
	There is a secondary problem which I probably should have mentioned but did not. None the less, it could be relevant. In all instances, one could disperse people across local authority boundaries and thereby export a problem from one borough to another. However, that applies equally to areas where there is, so to speak, single-tier local government. So I suppose that we will have to live with that.
	I hear what the noble Baroness said on the matter. I do not wholly agree with her, but I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
	Clause 37 [Anti-social behaviour orders]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Transpose Clause 37 to after Clause 91.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. These amendments move all of the clauses in Part 5 to the end of the Bill. That is in accordance with the current drafting convention that dictates that parts of Bills entitled "Miscellaneous Powers" should be placed at the end. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 38 [Certain orders made on conviction of offences]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Transpose Clause 38 to after Clause 91.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 39 [Penalty notices for disorderly behaviour by young persons]:

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 33, line 6, at end insert—
	"( ) After section 2(3) insert—
	"(3A) A penalty notice issued to a person under 18 must be given in a police station.""

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I rise to return for the last time to the issue of fixed penalty notices when applied to children and to speak to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. The purpose of the first amendment is to ensure that the safeguards of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code of practice C are on the face of the Bill. We feel that that is very important for this age group. The safeguards are there for very good reasons and recognise that 16 year-olds do indeed need to be managed in a different way and that being able to understand the full import of a fixed penalty notice is extremely important. On Report, the Minister said that to do so would be to reduce the effectiveness of the whole scheme because it would restrict the discretion of police officers. She also believed that it would be perfectly proper to issue a notice elsewhere provided that these young people fully understand the process.
	It is precisely that proviso, coupled with the age of the young person, that PACE exists to cover and should of course be observed, and it can only be assured at a police station with an appropriate adult present. I have heard no argument at all to justify the move to disregard PACE in this context and I believe that it would be wrong to disregard it now. That is not to question the discretion of the police officers at all, but merely to recognise the important fact that these are young people who are being dealt with. I shall not rehearse the same arguments as I did last time in relation to the discriminatory financial implications of the fining process. I was reassured somewhat by the Minister on that point. However, I should none the less be grateful if she would explicitly confirm that lower penalties will indeed be set for 16 and 17 year-olds.
	If the Minister is not prepared to amend the Bill, as I fear she may not be, I hope that she can assure me that the presumption will be that fixed penalty notices for under-18s will be issued only in a police station and in the presence of an appropriate adult; that the police operation guidance will clearly state the need to conform to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act code of practice C in respect of children and young people; and that the guidance will set out further preconditions for under-18s and their ability to understand the implications of the notice. I also understand that the Children's Society and other children's charities would welcome an assurance that they will be consulted on such guidance. I am seeking a lot of assurances. I dearly hope that we may get them and sleep easier in our beds as a result.
	The purpose of my second amendment is to remove the powers of the Home Secretary to reduce further the age at which fixed penalty notices can be issued from the age of 16 to as low as 10 years old by statutory instrument. Having discussed it very briefly with the Minister and having thought about it further, I am afraid that I remain very uneasy about this device of keeping the door open to something that should not be allowed to happen and that she did not directly address when it was discussed on Report.
	I must say, first, that I support the application of fixed penalty notices to adults. Indeed, the principle of dealing swiftly with low-level anti-social behaviour in this way—which deals with the problem at source, in an effective place; which hurts people's pockets, a very sensitive place; which does not waste valuable police time; and which does not leave the offender with a record—is admirable, and even more so since we are told that the outcome of the pilots has been successful. I assume that the results will be published in the near future so that we can see exactly how they were assessed.
	We understand that the scheme is now to be extended to 16 and 17 year-olds—the subject of my first amendment. However, most crucially, the Bill states that the same sanction can in future, following the results of the next piloted stage, be further applied by statutory instrument to 10 year-olds. It is that to which I feel I must return one more time.
	The noble Baroness said when we spoke about this on Report that this penalty will act as a deterrent. I wonder how real a deterrent such a penalty could possibly be to a 10 year-old who would not be paying the penalty anyway and who is unlikely to understand what it is all about or be able to give informed consent as code C of PACE requires. Nor do I see how the pilots on 16 and 17 year-olds will shed any light on how appropriate the sanction would be for children as young as 10. They are simply not in the same ballpark. What parents would punish a 17 year-old and a 10 year-old in the same way? It would not be on.
	The principle at issue is that the extension of the fixed penalty notice scheme in this way is not acceptable because it is extending an appropriate adult sanction to children, which is not appropriate or acceptable. As I have said before, children are not small adults and should not be treated as such however awful and unacceptable their behaviour. That is why we have a youth justice system. That is what our system of humane, just and practical ways of dealing with children is all about. It can be argued that this is a relatively insignificant issue to be pursuing where the offences are minor and the sanction simple. However, the principle is not simple.
	The other core issue is that the process of statutory instrument is not the way to go about the extension of the penalty. So this issue, with an important principle behind it, could go through on the nod, and that is what I take issue with. It is a matter that I believe merits proper consideration through the proper parliamentary process.
	I have been urged to return to this issue one more time as the feeling is so strong among all the children's organisations that this is an inappropriate way to go about imposing an inappropriate sanction. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance that this matter will be given the proper time and attention which it deserves before it is allowed to be introduced into the armoury of the police.
	Finally, while I am on my feet, I would like to raise one more issue. It is to do with some remarks that were made at Second Reading when I commented on the fact that the Opposition Benches were proposing to discuss only firearms and high hedges—both important matters—while totally ignoring all the other very substantive and serious issues that have subsequently been occupying us all for the past few weeks. That appeared to sting the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes—I only subsequently realised how extremely appropriate her name is for her chosen campaign in the cause of high hedges—into a response. While she agreed—at col. 1120 of Hansard—with,
	"neither the tone nor most of the content",
	of my speech—a view to which she is absolutely entitled and with which many may have sympathy—she also claimed that I had said that the Bill was,
	"wrongly conceived and should never have been brought before us".—[Official Report, 18/7/03; col. 1121.]
	In fact, what I said was as follows:
	"When the Government and the Home Secretary find us on these Benches resisting some of the measures in the Bill, it is not because we disagree with the basic proposition. What is at issue is the ways and means of effectively and constructively dealing with those problems, and of how we perceive and manage those predominantly young people who display no respect, recognition or concern for the rights, freedoms, privacy or feelings of others".—[Official Report, 18/7/03; col. 1097.]
	We have indeed had some interesting and illuminating debates about the means towards agreed ends covering both practicalities as well as some important principles. I should hate to think that anyone, including the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, believed that I or anyone on these Benches do not abhor anti-social behaviour, just as the Government do, even as we argue for the retention of important human rights on the one hand and seek—through our debates, which have been civilised and admirably piloted by the Minister—the most effective way of addressing the causes, the remedies and future prevention on the other. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I warmly welcome the statement of affirmation given by the noble Baroness in relation to the Bill. From time to time there may be some who may be forgiven for not getting entirely that impression, so I am glad that the noble Baroness said it so clearly. It is, of course, not only necessary to want to do good; one has to deliver and do that which enables good to be done. That is what we seek to do. I agree with the noble Baroness that much good work has been done in Committee and throughout the Bill's passage. I thank her warmly for her compliments which are not merited but are gratefully received by me none the less.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. I understand why the noble Baroness pursues the matter but I regret to tell her that I still think that these issues are misplaced. The effect of Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would be that under-16 year-olds would get a criminal conviction whereas, because of the proposals that we have made in the Bill, children over the age of 16 would not. I am sure that that is not the noble Baroness's intention.
	Of course at this stage we could have brought forward primary legislation in relation to younger children if we thought that was merited. However, we do not think that it is. It is clear from the information that we have at the moment that including 16 and 17 year-olds is merited. We shall look at the information that comes from the pilots and the operation of the system in relation to that younger age group. If we find that there is evidence to justify coming back to the House and using the affirmative resolution procedure to say, "We should like to reduce this age limit even further to 15 year-olds, 14 year-olds or whatever", we have the ability to do so. Therefore, it is not right to say—as the noble Baroness suggests—that we are going to drop the age immediately to 10 year-olds. That is not our intent. We wish these procedures to be used judiciously and well and only if they are merited.
	We appreciate the views expressed today and on previous occasions but we firmly believe that penalty notices for disorder have an important role to play in tackling anti-social behaviour by juveniles. They provide a valuable addition to existing powers and in our view complement them. They are aimed at relatively low level anti-social behaviour of the kind that causes a great deal of annoyance to the wider community. Juveniles who cause annoyance are not the sole preserve of the poor. Some very rowdy, disagreeable young people come, regrettably, from the very best of families. The measure applies to all those who behave badly in the way that we are discussing. That behaviour needs to be addressed. We have not changed our view about the need for this sanction to be available to the police in dealing with juveniles under 16 years of age. Extension of the scheme would give the police the power to tackle this behaviour. A notice will act as a deterrent but not leave the young person with a criminal conviction.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, before the noble Baroness goes any further, I ask for reassurance on the matter. If she is continuing to consider dropping the age boundary to 10, will she also consider carrying out further pilots? Will she give an assurance that she would consider further pilots before the age limit was dropped once again?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the modus operandi which we have adopted up until now is to have the power, pilot it, see whether it works—the noble Baroness will know that that was what we did with regard to adults—hone it to try to refocus it so that we get the best results and then seek to roll it out. We shall do the same kind of pilot with regard to 16 to 17 year-olds. It is a case of "suck it and see". We want to get it right. We need to be very careful to ensure that the scheme works. We are considering very much the utility of what we are doing.
	We believe that the fact that these penalty notices do not end in a conviction is an important factor in their favour. The noble Baroness, others on the Liberal Democrat Benches and my noble friend sitting behind me, who are very interested in and committed to children's issues, have made the point time and time again that it is important to get children on the right road, not give them a conviction early and deal with them properly. This facility is our way of doing that. The behaviour is tackled, the offender sees the results of his or her behaviour but gets a chance to mend his ways and keep out of the criminal justice system.
	Excluding under-16 year-olds from the scheme would mean that they could be dealt with only in a way that would leave them with a record, whereas offenders over 16 who accepted a penalty notice would not be left with a record. In our view it is right to allow those under 16 the same opportunity to keep out of the criminal justice system. At the same time communities want the police to take action against anti-social behaviour committed in their neighbourhoods and this will enable the police to do that.
	The Association of Chief Police Officers has urged the Government to extend the scheme to juveniles. As your Lordships will know, we intend to pilot the scheme first on 16 and 17 year-olds to see whether it could be usefully applied to younger age groups. I assure the noble Baroness that we shall pay very careful attention indeed to how it is working with that group when deciding whether to use the power to extend the scheme to under-16s.
	Parents should take responsibility for their children's behaviour and they should be expected to pay the penalty on their children's behalf. That is no different from the current position when a court fines a child under 16. I am really asking: do you want a conviction or not? I am sure that the answer that the noble Baroness would give is that none of us really wants these children to have a conviction unless it is necessary. I ask the noble Baroness to consider that point.
	I remind the House that the decision of the Home Secretary to lower the age will require the agreement of both Houses. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not oppose these powers. The noble Baroness will remember that the beauty of an affirmative resolution procedure is that either the House agrees to it or it strikes the order down. That option would be available if the House felt that the order was not merited. Penalty notices for disorder are intended primarily as an alternative for the police for low level anti-social offending such as being drunk and disorderly. The police final warning scheme will still remain the main disposal for under-18s. Supplementary guidance will be provided to the pilots to make it clear that penalty notices for disorder are an alternative option where they are thought a sufficient deterrent.
	The noble Baroness asked for assurance that the safeguards of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 would be available to those under 18 years of age who were given a penalty notice for disorder. For both adults and juveniles, the application of PACE and the codes of practice under it depends on the circumstances of the individual case. PACE and the codes of practice offer protection to individuals who are arrested, detained and interviewed by the police. A person must normally be taken to a police station as soon as possible after he is arrested, and any interview should take place at the police station. Code C offers particular safeguards for juveniles, including the presence of an appropriate adult at the police station.
	Under Section 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, a constable can give a penalty notice for disorderly behaviour to a person if the constable has reason to believe that that person has committed a penalty offence. In many cases, the constable will have reason to believe that a juvenile has committed a penalty offence without arresting or interviewing him. For example, the constable might have witnessed him throwing stones at a train or consuming alcohol in public.
	The idea of penalty notices for disorderly behaviour is to give the police a quick and effective means of dealing with such cases. In them, if I may respectfully suggest it, it would be a waste of time to arrest the juvenile and take him to the police station, and the presence of an appropriate adult would not serve any purpose. Once he has been given the penalty notice, the juvenile will still be able to discuss with his parents and others whether to pay the penalty or make a request to be tried. Under the proposals, parents will be notified of the issue of the notice. They will have 21 days to either pay or ask the court for a hearing. We believe that that both protects their rights and ensures that the child has ample opportunity to understand what the notice was issued for and the subsequent process.
	There are other cases that are less clear-cut, in which the constable may not be sure whether a penalty offence has been committed. For example, it may not be apparent whether the juvenile is drunk or unwell. In those cases, the constable might wish to talk to the juvenile about whether he has committed an offence. That would constitute an interview for the purposes of PACE codes, and the juvenile would have to be taken to a police station and interviewed in the presence of an appropriate adult.
	I hope that those assurances help the noble Baroness. I cannot say anything very much about the levels of fine. Those matters will be taken into consideration, and there will be guidance. We would be happy to send the children's charities copies of the draft guidance for pilots for 16 and 17 year-olds, so that they can comment on them. We would take that into account. The level of fine that we impose will be the kind of issue explored as a result of the pilots for 16 and 17 year-olds. We have not at the moment fixed a set level, but I am sure that we can take those issues into account.
	I hope that the noble Baroness understands a little more clearly why we think the provision a useful hybrid. It does not need the full panoply, but we hope that it will have a beneficial effect. It will be quick and the young person will know that their behaviour is disapproved of, albeit that they will not be treated so harshly that they end up having a conviction that may besmirch their career prospects and character unnecessarily for the rest of their life.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for once again giving such a full and thoughtful response. I still feel that there is an inappropriate connection between the approach to children as young as 10 and teenagers as old as 17, albeit that the provision is a way, as she said, of possibly avoiding some sort of conviction. However, it boils down to a failure to make that kind of crucial distinction. We must always keep the needs of children in mind, however we go about dealing with their offences.
	Although I recognise the possibility of affirmative resolution if such a situation were to be revisited, I understand—I have not had direct experience—that it is very rare indeed for an affirmative resolution to be voted down. Therefore, something would simply go through, so not much difference would be made in reality. However, I am very grateful for the Minister's offer to send draft guidance to the children's charities. I am sure that they will welcome that concession. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Transpose Clause 39 to after Clause 91.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 40 [Curfew orders and supervision orders]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Transpose Clause 40 to after Clause 91.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 41 [Extension of powers of community support officers etc.]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Transpose Clause 41 to after Clause 91.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 42 [Report by local authority in certain cases where person remanded on bail]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Transpose Clause 42 to after Clause 91.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 43 [Proceedings under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972: power of arrest attached to injunction]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Transpose Clause 43 to after Clause 91.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 47 [Closure of noisy premises]:

Lord Avebury: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 39, line 10, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State may issue guidelines as to what constitutes a public nuisance in terms of duration and volume of noise."

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the reason for tabling the amendment at such a late stage in the Bill is that we have only just had sight of the research conducted by MCM Research on behalf of Defra on noise from licensed premises. It would have been very useful to have it when considering the then Licensing Bill, when the issue caused a lot of discussion in the House at various stages. The research was commissioned by Defra a year ago, almost exactly to the day, to assess the potential impact of the Licensing Act on noise disturbance related directly or indirectly to the operation of licensed premises.
	The report was finally published to coincide with the UK Noise Forum conference held on 29th October. Unfortunately, no slot was provided during the day for discussing the report, and I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who was billed to attend the conference in the afternoon, had to cry off at the last minute, so there was no ministerial statement apart from a press release from his department. Since then, he told me in answer to a Question that any comments that the public wished to make on the MCM report would be noted, although he did not go so far as to say that the Government would do anything about them.
	Unfortunately, the consultants, the majority of whose clients were alcohol-related, were unable to predict what the effects of the Licensing Bill would be. They had to recommend merely that further research should be conducted on the frequency and nature of noise disturbance caused by patrons after they have left licensed premises, before and after the introduction of the new licensing regime under the Act. In other words, no one, least of all the consultants commissioned by the department, has the faintest idea whether one of the declared purposes of the Licensing Act—Section 4(2)(c) deals with,
	"the prevention of public nuisance"—
	is going to be achieved.
	Clause 47 of the Bill comes partly to the rescue by giving the local authority a closure power where,
	"a public nuisance is being caused by noise coming from the premises".
	According to the regulatory impact assessment, that should produce a decrease in the number of complaints of noise and nuisance by residents living near such premises. The police already have similar but not identical powers under the Licensing Act 1964, as amended by Section 17 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. It would be useful to know from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, the reason for the variation in the wording of the powers in this Bill from that in Section 17 of the 2001 Act.
	Unfortunately, the clause deals only with noise from inside the premises. As MCM Research said, many of the respondents considered that the disturbance in residential areas caused by patrons after they had left the premises would continue to be an intractable problem. The noble Lord may remember that we had long and detailed discussions on that during proceedings on the Licensing Bill, led principally by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury. He asked me to say that he, too, is very concerned that Clause 47 does not tackle the problem, about which we then spoke, of the menace of noise nuisance caused not by people who are inside the clubs and discos, but by the patrons after they have left those establishments.
	The consultants suggested that national guidelines should be developed on the definition of noise disturbance, together with appropriate assessment criteria and measurement procedures. They said that those should allow for environmental factors and take into account the times at which noise is generated, which may affect individual residents' perception of the nuisance. For example, what is acceptable at 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. would be quite intolerable at 3 a.m.
	Although noise from revellers outside clubs and discos can be dealt with as a statutory nuisance only when it reaches a much higher threshold, it would still be useful to have some idea of the level at which the police could take action against it under existing legislation.
	The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to issue guidelines. I hope that we may have some indication that, as far as Clause 47 is concerned, those guidelines will be quantitative, so that local authorities will be able use the powers in the confident knowledge that their actions will be supported by scientific measurements.
	The Institute of Acoustics has already done some work on what constitutes unacceptable disturbance and its advice might be useful in that regard. The institute's good-practice guide on the control of noise from pubs and clubs does attempt a definition on which the guidance for the clause might draw.
	In many of our towns and cities, people's lives are being made a misery by the metastasis of the all-night booze economy into what used to be quiet residential neighbourhoods. That will be now be further aggravated by the Licensing Act 2003. Let us offer those people a little reassurance that there will be a firm upper limit to the nuisance that they have to endure. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Derby: My Lords, the problem of noise is in part a technical matter, and its regulation by the consultants commissioned by Defra is even more technical, so I do not intend to stray into that territory. However, our cities and towns are now increasingly places where the success of the entertainment industry is a part of their future prosperity. In my own county of Derbyshire, there has been much regeneration of towns, and of the city of Derby in particular, thanks to new clubs, restaurants and other entertainment venues.
	The Church does not wish to be a killjoy in that matter, but it is important that we have confidence in the licensing of such places. In dealing both with the issue of law and order outside clubs and pubs and with the problem of noise, it is important that the regeneration of urban economies through the entertainment industry is balanced against the need to preserve diverse communities where people's different needs and rights are respected. I have in mind particularly the disturbances experienced by one young vicar and his family, serving in a deprived town centre and committed to living among those whom he serves. At times, they have been almost driven from their home. The voice, indeed the noise, of local residents has been faint and drowned out in the planning process. In the context of noise nuisance, it would be helpful if the Minister were able to report on any progress in splitting A3 user class—the distinction between teashops and nightclubs.
	The faint voices of local residents have echoed apparently unheard as licensing hours for surrounding pubs and clubs have been successively extended into the early hours. That has led to regularly unacceptable traffic flows, levels of noise and loutishness after midnight.
	The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, speaks to that need and I welcome it. There can be no quarrel with clear guidance on what constitutes a nuisance in terms of noise, always providing that data and guidelines lead to action.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I am wholly sympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is trying to achieve, but is not the drafting of the amendment slightly defective? It refers to the duration and volume of the noise, but not to the timing of the noise. As he indicated himself, a certain volume of noise measured in decibels that would be perfectly acceptable at 6 o'clock in the evening would be quite intolerable at 3 o'clock in the morning. The amendment as drafted does not quite take that into account.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for bringing forward the amendment even, as he said, at this late stage. It is valuable to have further discussion on the subject, but I am not entirely confident that I will able to answer all his points and the points that were raised by the right reverend Prelate. However, we will see where we get.
	I am entirely in agreement with all noble Lords who have spoken on the matter. Having led a local authority for some 13 years, I can confirm that noise nuisance, particularly in and around the Brighton seafront, was always a problem, especially to people living in small streets close to a club—and it always will be a problem, because it is not easy to resolve. The policing, monitoring and careful management of those areas will be a major issue, because we increasingly live in a night-time economy, especially in places like Brighton and Blackpool. We should recognise that that brings benefits, but also considerable problems. In part, Clauses 46 and 47 aim to deal with exactly those problems and issues.
	The clauses propose a new power for local authorities to issue closure orders of up to 24 hours on licensed premises to prevent a public nuisance. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, they address activities within the premises, but less so without. I cannot answer the noble Lord's precise point about the variation in wording. I will have to reflect on that further as it has not been raised with us previously. However, I acknowledge the point and we will try to deal with it.
	I would also like to congratulate the noble Lord on coming forward with an amendment that would provide the Secretary of State with more powers. That is an interesting departure from previous positions adopted by Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches. Their providing us with an opportunity to issue guidance is a blessing that I am loath to put on one side.
	The decision whether a public nuisance is occurring should be left to the investigating environmental health officer's judgment, based on his skills, experience and training. I shall speak a little more about that in due course. Such a discretion would allow the investigating officer to take into account not only the volume and duration of the noise, but also the characteristics of the neighbourhood; the type and frequency of the noise; the time of day or—more likely—night when it occurs; and what alternative measures could be taken. He could also assess whether the licensee is taking reasonable steps to control the noise. That is an important consideration.
	In the local authority setting, the relationship between the enforcers and those who are responsible for the management of premises is important. On visits that I have made in the past, I have seen how important it is that that relationship is developed. It enables both parties to understand the parameters of what is desirable and what can be achieved, and also what is right in the circumstances. Those judgments should be made according to the neighbourhood and surrounding premises.
	It is our belief that the flexibility will allow officers to distinguish between a level of noise that might be appropriate for a nightclub in a busy city centre, but would almost certainly be inappropriate for a country pub in a quiet residential area—and to take account of those many issues where premises sit uneasily together.
	The amendment seeks to provide the Secretary of State with the power to issue guidance to local authorities on setting and delivering effective noise control policies. That guidance is already there and available within the noise management guide. I am sure the noble Lord will know that previously the guide was produced by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health in consultation and careful discussion with departments. Now it falls to Defra to work with the institute.
	The guide is being jointly updated by Defra and the CIEH. I pay tribute to them. In an earlier professional incarnation, I spent a great deal of time with environmental health officers. The work they have done on noise and noise nuisance is most valuable. We believe it is right to concentrate our efforts on updating that guidance. It will provide the background thinking to the way in which enforcement takes place. The research will be valuable and will form part of the background information necessary to update the guidance.
	A number of other points were raised and I shall try to deal with them in turn. The right reverend Prelate asked about planning changes to class A3 premises. The ODPM has brought forward the change suggested, but I need to provide the right reverend Prelate with more detail. I shall put that in correspondence to him and share it with all those who have taken part in the debate.
	Clause 47 targets noise from premises and that will fall to the local authorities. As regards areas outside premises, clearly, the local authority enforcement officers will want to work closely with the police. They are, after all, responsible for dealing with noise in the streets. They have a range of powers already to deal with the order and supporting guidance, including, controversially, fixed-penalty notices. There is a working relationship and we expect that to develop. Furthermore, it falls to them to deal with the public order aspects of noise nuisance on the streets and in the community.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the Licensing Act and the ability which should exist to take account of the cumulative impact of a large number of premises, particularly clubs. The Licensing Act enables a licensing authority to make a statement in relation to the cumulative impact of licensed premises when it receives representations and complaints. It will allow it to refuse licences when, on balance, it believes that to be right, particularly where a new application comes forward. With the development of licensing legislation and bringing that together with other local authority licensing functions, we see greater coherence developing in the next few years. That has been a problem, as I am sure noble Lords with local government experience will readily acknowledge.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the amendment, but we do not believe that it will necessarily achieve his aim. Guidance is already available and it is being updated to take account of changes in legislation. In this instance, the way in which that is being drawn up through the CIEH officers working closely with Defra will best suit us, rather than having to give a new power to the Secretary of State. I hope that having heard that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister may be surprised to learn that I did not believe that he needed my permission to issue guidance on this clause. My amendment was designed to tease out the guidance that the Secretary of State might issue. The Minister has been helpful in explaining what he believes will happen in the joint update between Defra and the CIEH.
	I offer one qualification to the way the guidance has been formulated: it does not take into consideration the views of the residents. That has been the case throughout our discussions on the nuisance of noise. The right reverend Prelate mentioned it yet again in saying that there should be a balance between the need to regenerate a community and the needs of the local neighbourhoods which surround the developments. That is where we have not got the balance right. Although the environmental health officers are best competent to say what constitutes a nuisance, if the views of local residents are ignored there will not be harmony between them and the developers.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I may try to be a little more helpful. It will be important, particularly for local authorities as custodians of the policy and its enforcement, to have a view on the issue. I will undertake to ensure that the LGA is consulted in the development of guidance. I am sure that it would be in any event, but it is worth putting that on the record. The interaction between the local authorities as custodians and the local communities will be very important. However, one could ably argue that environmental health officers, because of their frontline jobs, are in touch with public opinion on these issues.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Ministers additional reassurance is most helpful because the LGA will be in touch with local residents. It will feel the electoral pressures of people who are dissatisfied with the arrangements that are made.
	However, I do not accept the Minister's assertion that this is always an issue and always will be. There can be a balance of interests between the developers and local residents, even in a place such as Brighton of which he has considerable knowledge. That is no less the case in other places which do not spring to mind as great hot spots of entertainment; for instance, the cities of Derby or Bath. Many cities in England and Wales were formerly quiet cities where people went for the kind of entertainment to be found in, say, Bath. I do not want to typify Bath, but people went there to visit the Pump Room, the theatre, and so forth and did not expect to find large crowds of noisy revellers on the streets at 3 a.m. preventing them getting to sleep in the hotels.
	That is the balance we must strike. The Minister's comments today may be of some reassurance to those who are suffering from the blight. I am therefore most grateful to the Minister for considering my proposal. I do not intend to press the amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 61 [Sale of aerosol paint to children]:

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Page 48, line 18, leave out second "an" and insert "a large"

Earl Attlee: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 17, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. We are grateful that on Report the Minister was helpful to my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith and accepted that 16 was a more appropriate age to limit the sale of aerosol spray cans than 18. At the Report stage, I tabled amendments which sought to deal with the problem in another way, but in order to save your Lordships' time, I did not move them. However, your Lordships now need to consider whether the sale of far smaller aerosol paint tins to youngsters still needs to be prohibited. Some companies, such as Humbrol, produce smaller-sized aerosol cans of 100 millilitres that are used for model-making and other arts and crafts. Aerosol cans of that size would be fairly ineffective for graffiti and, indeed, a 100-millilitre can of spray paint would hardly do very much for the "street cred" of graffiti artists.
	The distinction between smaller-sized cans and the larger ones of 300 millilitres or more, which are commonly used for graffiti, is therefore important. It seems to me to be unnecessary to prohibit the sale of smaller-sized aerosols to those who are under the current agreed age limit. Doing so would adversely affect and demotivate children who are creatively inclined and who engage in constructive pastimes, such as arts and crafts.
	The proposed amendment would allow those under the age of 16 who use aerosol spray cans lawfully to continue to be able to buy them. The amendment works by providing prohibition only for large spray cans defined as being over 125 millilitres. That would leave the smaller cans outside the scope of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister will find my amendment very attractive—even irresistible. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not like to upset the noble Earl but my speaking note states "Resist". It could probably simply say "Resist" and leave it at that. I find this a somewhat incredible amendment. As it stands, Clause 61 seeks to outlaw the sale of aerosol spray paints to children in order to reduce incidences of graffiti. As the noble Earl explained, the amendments would limit the coverage of the clause to large aerosols only.
	I confess that I cannot see the logic of the noble Earl's argument. Surely small aerosols are just as well suited—perhaps even better suited—to criminal damage as large ones. They can far more easily be concealed about one's person. I should have thought that the smaller aerosol can would probably be attractive to someone who was determined, as graffitists appear to be, to exercise his art—if one can call it that—more or less anywhere. I do not believe that the average graffiti artist is too worried about his street cred, other than ensuring that people can see the effect of his activities.
	I also wonder how the noble Earl would see his proposal being policed. I believe it is extremely hard to see a way in which the amendment could work in any practical sense. If it were amended in this way, I cannot see that the clause would any longer take the tools of the graffiti trade, if it can be described in that way, out of the hands of children.
	Therefore, on grounds of practicality and logic, I cannot see any place for this amendment in our Bill. I understand what the noble Earl is saying but I do not believe that the effect of his amendment on Clause 61 would be to provide a serious disincentive to young people in general to use Humbrol paints. Young people have used those paints for many years in the way in which I used them as a child without needing to indulge in acts of graffiti. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment and I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw it.

Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not realise that 125 millilitres is no more than the size of a large glass of wine? One cannot cover very many walls with that volume.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, if one carried a few of those cans, I am sure that one could make a pretty fine mess of a wall without trying too hard.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I had a sneaking feeling that the Minister would come up with an argument along the lines that he has articulated. However, a youngster could also buy a king-sized magic marker pen, and the damage that such pens do is much in evidence on the Tube system. Perhaps the Minister would say why we are not banning those.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, if people use marker pens to deface public space and cause criminal damage, of course they can be dealt with if they can be caught and apprehended. We are trying to ensure that we deal with the issue of spray cans and nip that problem in the bud. But I believe that the order of damage that can be caused by their use is also somewhat wider.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the careful consideration that the Minister has given to my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
	Clause 66 [Aggravated trespass]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Page 51, line 9, at end insert—
	"(b) after paragraph (c) insert—
	"(d) of causing obstruction or disruption to the general community""

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, last week we were all treated to reports—and some of us experienced the consequences—of a man who climbed up a crane on a site near the Tower of London. According to reports in The Times, he caused losses to the community at large of many millions of pounds and cost the police £10,000 per day. We know that the congestion consequences of that action were huge. A major gateway to the City of London was blocked for three days and the traffic back-up caused immense frustration and vexation to many people. The man in question has come down, thank heavens—he was bound to in the end—and he has been charged with causing a public nuisance and a danger to public safety.
	The difficulty that I seek to overcome is that there is a lack of definition of the offence of causing a public nuisance. It is a common law offence or it is defined under various other Acts—for example, the Environmental Protection Act, which clearly would not be relevant in a case such as this. If ever there was a case of aggravated trespass, this was it. However, Clause 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 states:
	"A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land"—
	we have deleted the words "in the open air"—
	"and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in . . . does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect . . . of intimidating those persons . . . so as to deter them . . . from engaging in that activity . . . of obstructing that activity, or . . . of disrupting that activity".
	I doubt whether the man who climbed up on the crane had any intention of doing any of those things. Apart from the fact that he probably knew that he would attract some television cameras and some amusement, I do not suppose that he had really thought of the consequences of what he was doing. Therefore, I believe that it would be helpful to add a paragraph (d) to the subsection of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act from which I quoted so that the section would then read,
	"does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect of . . . causing obstruction or disruption to the general community".
	Although the wording of my amendment may not be perfect, I believe that it would make it plain that if someone did something which caused general chaos, there would be a clear section of the law under which he could be charged. My attempt was to try to define that. I may well have failed. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will tell me that I have, but I believe we should give the matter some consideration. There is no doubt in my mind that we should make it very clear that if someone undertakes the type of enterprise with the consequences that I have described, he should be well aware that there will be clear adverse consequences for him personally. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I very much understand the desire of the noble Lord to attempt to give the police additional powers to deal with protesters who seek publicity for their cause by climbing tall structures. However, we are not convinced that the police lack the powers to deal with that type of protest, nor do we think that the noble Lord's amendment would do what he wants it to do, albeit I accept that it is a stalking horse for us to have this debate.
	While it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on any particular case, everyone has the right to protest peacefully about issues on which they hold sincere views. However, we do not think that that right extends to disruption to the wider community. I agree with the noble Lord's comments in that regard. There are various offences which might be committed in situations such as this; for example, aggravated trespass and causing a public nuisance. The police have a duty of care. Issues of safety for the protester, the general public and police officers will be of paramount concern in these situations.
	I suggest that the noble Lord's amendment, which seeks to extend the offence of aggravated trespass, is drawn too widely. We do not think that it is necessary. All the amendment does is to widen who could be trespassing on land to cover protesters who are intentionally causing obstruction or disruption to the general community. Even with the amendment, the offence of aggravated trespass will still apply only where someone was engaged or was about to engage in any unlawful activity.
	I remind the House that the police have the power to direct persons to leave land where a person is committing or intending to commit the offence of aggravated trespass, and if a direction is not complied with they can arrest an individual. In view of the powers that the police already have to deal with this type of protest, I do not think, with respect, that the noble Lord's amendment is necessary. It is always a matter for the police to choose between the various different powers which they wish to alight upon because of the circumstances of the particular case. They will take fully into account the safety issues that might prevail if they adopt one course rather than the other but that does not change the fact that the powers are available to them. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord not to press his amendment. I am sure that he will not.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, in view of the existing powers she mentioned, can she say whether some charge will be brought against this so-called Spiderman who was on top of the crane for so long? He must have been well aware of the disruption he caused and there must have been plenty of witnesses.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I tried to make clear that I cannot comment on individual cases, particularly when they are sub judice. Noble Lords will gather that there have been proceedings taken. I think I can go as far as to say that when the person concerned came down from the crane he was charged with being a public nuisance and causing danger to public safety. The offence with which he has been charged is triable either way. It attracts a six months custodial sentence and/or level 5 fine. That penalty is higher than that for aggravated trespass, which is a summary only offence. I do not think that I can, with propriety, go any further than that.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I had done what I could to find out what was available, without prejudice to what might happen. I was careful not to comment on the merits of the particular case and simply used it to provoke the noble Baroness, if I might put it that way, into the explanation she gave. I hope that others elsewhere will take notice of that. I thought it essential to obtain wider knowledge of what might happen if one indulged oneself in that way. I have always wanted to climb a crane but I am certain that I shall not do so now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 67 [Power to remove trespassers: alternative site available]:

Lord Avebury: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Page 51, line 14, at end insert—
	"( ) In section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, after subsection (3) insert—
	"(3A) Any direction under subsection (1) shall include a list of relevant caravan sites on which there are suitable pitches for the persons who are the subject of the direction.""

Lord Avebury: My Lords, on Report we sought to align the police power to direct travellers to leave an unauthorised site under Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 with those in Clause 67 of this Bill. We were told by the Minister, to my very great disappointment, that the Government had deliberately set out to create two entirely different regimes for the police to direct travellers to move off an unauthorised encampment.
	We were told that in a case where local authorities had already provided sites and suitable pitches were available, the police would use the powers in the Bill but where no suitable pitches were available they could use the powers they already have in Clause 67 of the 1994 Act, to which the amendment refers.
	At no point has any Minister contested the assertion that in the 157 local authority areas where there were unauthorised encampments, at the time of the January 2003 ODPM survey there were no suitable pitches available on any of the official sites and that there will not be any pitches available within the foreseeable future. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for saying that I sent her evidence in the shape of a survey which I conducted in August and the first week of September on the failure of the local authorities in those 157 areas to carry out their statutory duties under the Homelessness Act. In fact I sent a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, following a conversation I had with him about progress as we had a debate on gypsies and travellers earlier in the year. I thought he said that he had sent it on to the noble Baroness, but obviously he did not. However, I have also sent a copy of the survey to the ODPM. Copies are available on the Shelter website and on the website of the Traveller Law Reform Coalition.
	The survey showed that not one of those local authorities has any plans to construct new sites and there is nothing in the Bill to give them any incentive to construct sites. The Government now say that they will make a Statement about Pat Niner's report to the ODPM in spring 2004. If they come round then to the idea of reinstating the duty of local authorities to provide enough sites for gypsies residing in or resorting in their areas, as provided for in the Caravan Sites Act 1968, there will then be a period of consultation followed by legislation and the earliest that anything could happen would be well outside the timescale of five years in the Niner report. I assume that they will accept the recommendation that Niner made that there should be a resumption of the statutory duty, and that may well not happen. But during the five years that she surveyed, she said that there was a requirement for between 3,000 and 4,500 pitches. We might get one-twentieth of that number, all of which are likely to be on transit rather than residential sites.
	The Government are just as adept at putting off decisions as their predecessors have been for the past 35 years. I was forcefully reminded of that by one of the documents in the national archives, which has just been released under the 30-year rule, reference June 1974 AT78/7, where a civil servant wrote in a briefing which was then given to Ministers:
	"There is precious little electoral advantage in providing a site and there are strong incentives to procrastinate and to hope that the problem will simply go away".
	That has a very familiar ring. What Mr John Downie, the civil servant at the Department of the Environment, then wrote is equally true of councils and governments today: They would get no brownie points from the electorate as a whole for the comprehensive strategy demanded by Niner, so they just let things drift: plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose".
	The refurbishment grant, on which the noble Baroness and her Government have relied as evidence that they are doing something, has now been extended for the two years 2004–5 and 2005–06. The Government have given a total of £8 million to local authorities for those two years, compared with the £16.78 million which Pat Niner says is the minimum necessary over the period 2002–07 simply to bring up sites to the standard and to maintain them at that level; not to buy any new sites.
	There may be some uncertainty about the figures, as the Government have claimed, but the difference between the Government's plans and the recommendations made by one of the foremost experts in the field is vast. There is no doubt at all that in each of the past two years there has been an increase in the number of travellers on unauthorised sites, arising from under-provision.
	Leaving the police with the power in Section 61 to shift gypsies from one unauthorised site to another, often within the same area, while doing nothing to correct the shortage of accommodation which leaves the travellers with nowhere that they can lawfully stop, is a manifestly unworkable policy. It certainly will not do anything to alleviate the "aggro" caused to residents of houses when an increasing number of unauthorised travellers camp in their vicinity.
	This clause is about a symptom, not the disease. The Government have already rejected the proposition we advanced on Report, that we should stop treating the symptom without thinking about the cure. So the amendment aims to provide at least a record of where the symptom is hurting. It would provide that every time the police exercise the Section 61 power that they will do so in the full knowledge that the problem is simply being shifted and not solved. I beg to move.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to which I have put my name. Throughout the discussion on this part of the Bill, we have voiced the concerns of organisations—the Children's Society, Save the Children, the Gypsy Council and others—which have been worried that the provisions in this section of the Bill would have the effect of criminalising Roma and traveller people and rendering more difficult the access of their children to education and healthcare.
	During the passage of the Bill the Minister has given certain assurances as to the Government's good intentions. These have been passed on to the organisations concerned. The Government have also introduced a couple of amendments which were designed to deal with some of the worries to which we have given expression.
	However, concerns remain. It is generally admitted that there is a shortage of suitable sites, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said. Some local authorities do not seem to take very seriously the obligation to provide suitable alternative sites. Eviction, with all that that means in terms of disruption and trauma for families and children, must always be a last resort; and removal as a result of negotiation is always much to be preferred. Suitable pitches must be available before people are faced with eviction. That is surely reasonable.
	It is also true, and there has been considerable evidence of this, that there is a certain amount of discrimination against Roma and traveller people. There was a report in the newspapers today about harassment, to which Roma people have been suffering, in East Sussex, for example, and the CRE has been moved to say that something should be done about this kind of discrimination.
	If people constantly face the possibility of eviction from the sites they occupy, they are bound to feel that this persecution has some effect. Of course, we must do everything we possibly can to prevent that happening.
	The amendment, which is now moved as a last attempt to deal with these problems, is entirely reasonable. I urge my noble friend to accept it.

The Lord Bishop of Derby: My Lords, the issue of the traveller community has been of concern to this House for some time. There are problems with the provision of facilities for travellers, as the Minister said in Committee on 7th October. So, I welcome the fact that the ODPM's homelessness unit will incorporate the research of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, into its own strategy.
	Given the pastoral reality that homelessness among travellers is serious, my concern and my question is whether it is wise to strengthen the powers of the police, as the Bill does, without tying those additional powers into the provision of further facilities. In the course of my work I have visited authorised residential sites, which are well placed with an effective warden or manager and satisfactory amenities. All parties, including travelling people, local authorities and the police have worked together with positive outcomes for residents and the community at large.
	On the other hand, I have no doubt that the Government can and will supply details of the problems caused by illegal trespass. No one can doubt the need for the police to have powers to control such a general nuisance. But, unless there is more of a concerted strategy to provide additional help as well as strengthening police powers, grounds for concern will remain that the enforcement aspect of this issue is taking precedence over the pastoral. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, seeks to tie together these two aspects in a way that I find convincing and I would like to support the amendment.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I also support this practical amendment. It points up the biggest problem about the whole issue: this shortage of permanent and transit sites which constitutes a failure of our local authorities properly to consider what the local needs of all our communities are. This is really indirect and sometimes direct discrimination. I think it engages the Human Rights Act.
	I very much agree with the right reverend Prelate. Indeed, when I was a CharterMark assessor, I had the opportunity to visit permanent gypsy sites in the boroughs of Kent which were extremely well maintained and no problem to the local residents.
	I add that I am most grateful to my noble friend for copying to me her letter to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, of 10th November on these issues. I express the hope that in preparing the guidance which will be provided, her department will also consult the gypsy, Roma and Sinti communities as well as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Local Authority Associations.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I rise to resist the amendment. In doing so, I want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, my noble friends Lady Turner and Lady Whitaker and the right reverend Prelate for their contributions, which were most thoughtful. I think that a thoughtful approach is best regarding very difficult issues relating to travellers, gypsies and Roma folk generally. It is not an easy issue. Retreating as it were to my local authority experience, they used to provide the local authority with many headaches and difficult decisions to make. Those difficult decisions were not made any easier when the Caravans Act 1968 was effectively repealed. Speaking personally, it made life much more difficult.
	Having said that, I can well understand concerns expressed by voluble residents, certainly in parts of my borough, about poor behaviour and behaviour that was provocative and caused a nuisance. We have to try and strike the right balance. The noble Lord certainly accepts that difficulties have been caused. Other speakers have also accepted that point.
	The amendment seeks to add a further condition to the existing power to issue a direction under Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. I made clear on Report that existing powers can be used only if reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask the trespassers to leave where the trespassers have caused damage to land or to property on land; or have used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards the occupiers; or where the trespassers have six or more vehicles between them.
	The amendment would require a direction to direct trespassers to leave land made in those circumstances to include a list of suitable pitches. It certainly does not go so far as does the noble Lord's previous amendment. We do not want the use of those existing powers to be made more difficult, complex and bureaucratic through that additional requirement. Where local authorities have provided sites and there is a suitable pitch on that site, the police will have the power to remove trespassers from unauthorised sites under the new powers in Clauses 65 to 69.
	As I said, I appreciate that the amendment does not prevent the police using their powers if there is no suitable site. However, where trespassers have caused damage to land, where they have used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, or where they have six or more vehicles between them, it is right that the police can act swiftly to restore the land to its owner. The amendment places additional thresholds—requirements—on the police before they can act. That is not right or appropriate.
	In his usual, skilful way, the noble Lord has used this debate to raise broader issues; I can understand why. I certainly share some of the concerns that he and others have raised in this useful mini-debate. But the amendment is not the right way to proceed. It would prevent the authorities being able to act in difficult circumstances in which it is right that they do so to prevent a continuing nuisance.
	As for the broader issues, the Niner report is under active consideration. I heard what the noble Lord said about the value of prevarication, but it is under active consideration. There are several alternatives to the proposal to reimpose the duty on local authorities—such as further changes to the planning regime. I do not say that that is a definite proposition, but it is certainly a further consideration. There are no immediate proposals to make decisions, but decisions will be made and the view is that come next spring—perhaps in April—a firmer line on policy in those matters will be taken.
	I can make no promises about the outcome of those further considerations, but there are important issues to be considered and it is accepted that there is a shortage of available sites. My guess—my summation—is that it is likely that more money is being spent by local authorities than the grants that have been made available.
	That is certainly true if my experience as a local authority leader is anything to go by: we felt obliged to provide for what were described as tolerated sites simply because of the sheer pressure being placed on us in our urban area to deal with travellers parking their vans, trucks and cars on the roadside and causing a nuisance of a different sort. We had to provide some sort of facility. I guess that many local authorities have had to take similar action.
	I think that it goes without saying, because it is common sense, that a more coherent, more cohesive strategy is required than has perhaps emerged for some years. That takes some time to sort out; no doubt there will have to be some delicate discussions between the several tiers of local and central government. This is not the Bill that can sort out that problem.
	I congratulate the noble Lord on tabling the amendment, sparking this debate and encouraging others to join it, because the issues are important. Doubtless, dealing with some of the issues that travellers, gypsies and other travelling communities can create when rubbing up against settled communities requires careful thought. The Government have taken some important steps—not least by ensuring that at least some money is available to local authorities to begin important upgrading work and to extend some sites. The noble Lord made some powerful points about expenditure on that. It is not for me to judge, but we recognise that problems exist. No doubt this area of policy will unfold during the next few months.
	So I must resist the amendment; it is unhelpful. The clause will help the police and local authorities to tackle abuse where nuisance is properly acknowledged to exist; it is accepted that it should be tackled as we propose. So I am grateful to the noble Lord. I must resist the amendment, but I have listened carefully to the important points that have been made during the debate.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he answer my point about consultation with gypsy organisations in preparing the guidance?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I would expect that where guidance is drafted and considered, there would be such consultation. I know that the gypsy organisations, in particular, have a well respected history and tradition of providing their views volubly on matters pertaining to guidance.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Whitaker, and to the right reverend Prelate, for their support for the amendment, which we tabled to expose the fact that the Government's policy is the wrong way round. They are providing the initial powers under Clause 67 while not taking the first step towards providing the sites—which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, local authorities do not at present take seriously. Of course they do not, because there is no statutory obligation and no money. In the old days, under the 1968 Act, there were both: they had to provide sites for gypsies residing in or resorting to their area; and they received a 100 per cent grant.
	If the Minister imagines that something that falls desperately short of that scheme will do the trick, he is very much mistaken. We certainly look forward to the announcement that he foreshadowed next spring of what is the Government's policy on the Niner report. I wonder why they cannot at least say that they accept her principal recommendation, which is that the Government should have a clear, widely understood national policy towards the accommodation of travellers. We do not have that; and we have never had it. The opportunity was lost at the time of Sir John Cripps's report, in which he recommended that all the local authorities should get together with the Government and have an agreed scheme for the provision of a certain number of sites within an agreed timetable.
	The right reverend Prelate said that homelessness of travellers is a serious matter—we know that from the ODPM's own figures. Under the Housing Act 1996, everybody on an unauthorised site is ipso facto statutorily homeless, and there are 3,000 such caravans. How can Parliament continue to provide additional enforcement powers while we know perfectly well that 3,000 families live homeless in those conditions? As the Minister rightly says, those conditions cause difficulties in the settled areas where the caravans are located.
	I am very sorry that the noble Lord has insisted, yet again, on doing things the wrong way around—giving local authorities additional enforcement powers while doing nothing whatsoever to solve the problem of accommodation shortages. However, we have no alternative but to wait until next spring to find out the Government's policy. I hope that they will consult not only on the guidance on the enforcement powers in the Bill, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, on the formulation of their strategy. If they produce a policy next spring that does not match the needs perceived by the travelling community and the many organisations that support it—including the CRE, which is far more active than ever before—another opportunity will have been missed.
	I hope that the noble Lord will take the message from this debate to consult widely on the formulation of the strategy, which will appear next April, and that that strategy will include comprehensive knowledge of the needs of gypsies from themselves. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we now move to a very special part of proceedings, when I can thank all noble Lords for the energy and vigour with which they have scrutinised the Bill. I thank all Front-Benchers for participating in making this Bill something that we can all think gives us credit. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kindness and consideration throughout the Bill. She has dealt with us all with immense care. In doing so, she has revealed the care and trouble that she intends should be taken for those who suffer from those problems, or who must deal with them, in the community. The Bill is better for our consideration. We are very grateful to her for her care of us and of the subject.
	On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2003

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th September be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House approve the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2003, which will reclassify cannabis to a class C drug on 29th January 2004.
	I note the concern that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has expressed in his amendment about the levels of use of cannabis and the risks to the health of young people. I will come to those very important issues shortly, but I first wish to set the proposed reclassification of cannabis in its proper context.
	The misery that can be caused by the use of illegal drugs, particularly class A drugs, cannot be underestimated. Their use affects the well-being of individuals and families, as well as striking at the very fabric of communities, feeding a cycle of crime, violence and decay. The Government's drug strategy must deliver real change on the ground in relation to the most dangerous drugs and the most damaged communities. Key elements of the strategy are educating young people about the dangers of drugs, preventing drug misuse, combating the dealers and treating addicts.
	Our programme of interventions brings those arrested into treatment, so breaking the cycle of committing crime to fuel a drug habit. The Government are increasing their direct annual expenditure on tackling drugs from just over £1 billion this financial year to nearly £1.5 billion from April 2005—an increase of some 44 per cent.
	Young people are our highest priority. We have launched the Frank campaign, using carefully researched advertising designed to make a real difference to young people's attitudes to illegal drugs—drugs can ruin lives very quickly. Education policies are now in force in 96 per cent of all secondary schools. We must recognise that there are no quick or easy fixes to the scourge of drugs. However, we are taking action based on evidence of what works, and, to be effective, we need to be honest in our approach and listen carefully to the scientific advice that we get, and not be led by prejudice or emotion.
	It was those underlying themes that led the Home Secretary to announce to the Home Affairs Select Committee in October 2001 that he was asking the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to consider the classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Cannabis use has increased steadily over the past 30 years, in spite of cannabis being a class B drug. The treatment of all drugs as equally harmful has lacked credibility with young people, and individual police forces have put in place their own disparate policies on the policing of cannabis possession, leading to inconsistency and a lack of proper political accountability.
	The Government's proposal to reclassify cannabis to class C, in line with the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, will enable us to correct these anomalies. But let me make it absolutely clear that we are not legalising cannabis. Our message is that cannabis is harmful and it will remain an illegal drug. However, in terms of its harmfulness, the advisory council is clear in its view that cannabis is not comparable either with class A drugs, such as crack cocaine or heroin, or with other substances, such as amphetamines, which are currently in class B. Our drugs laws and our education messages to young people must reflect that scientific assessment if they are to be effective and credible. So the reclassification of cannabis will help the Government to convey a more effective and credible message, especially to young people, about the dangers of misusing drugs.
	We will start an education campaign in early January to get the simple message across to young people that cannabis remains illegal and is harmful, by making a leaflet widely available to young people and through extensive radio advertising. To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, directly: the Government do not accept that a high level of use of cannabis is inevitable. We will try to make an impact on that level through effective advertising, and begin to turn young people away from becoming regular cannabis users.
	Secondly, reclassification will provide an opportunity for putting in place a consistent and properly thought out regime for policing cannabis, in line with its status as a class C drug. We have included proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill to retain the power of arrest for the possession of cannabis. Under the published police guidance, which applies to all persons 18 years of age and over, there will be a presumption against arresting a person who is found in possession of cannabis. But a police officer may arrest in the following four circumstances: when a person is smoking in public view; when a person is known locally to have been dealt with repeatedly for possession of cannabis; when there is a locally identified policing problem; or when the person in possession is in the vicinity of a school or other premises used by young people.
	Young people under the age of 18 will be dealt with under the statutory warning scheme set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In most cases, they will receive a formal reprimand for a first instance of cannabis possession. This will be administered in the police station, so that the police can properly investigate whether there are any underlying issues around the person's drug use which need be to investigated and possibly referred for appropriate help. This overall regime for policing cannabis possession will ensure that action is properly taken by the police against someone who is causing a problem or needs help, while avoiding needlessly criminalising large numbers of young people.
	Reclassification will also enable the police to redeploy their resources into tackling more serious offences, including dealing in class A drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine, which do the most harm to users, their families and communities, as well as enhancing our work to get people into treatment.
	Perhaps I may say something about dealers. The Government take dealing in any illegal drug very seriously. We have therefore brought forward proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill to increase the maximum penalty for dealing in a class C drug from five to 14 years imprisonment. That will mean that, following reclassification, the penalty for dealing in cannabis will remain at its current level. The courts will continue to be able to impose tough sentences on serious dealers.
	In this House, there are many different views about the correct response to cannabis. I know that some noble Lords advocate complete legalisation, arguing that that would cut the link between young users and criminal dealers. The Government respect that view, but believe that it would inevitably lead to a massive increase in the use of cannabis and the health problems that would result. Cannabis is harmful. In our view, it would be highly irresponsible for any Government to gamble in that way with young people's health.
	Other noble Lords believe that cannabis should remain a class B drug, arguing a number of health concerns with which I shall deal in some detail. The issue of whether cannabis is a gateway drug to class A drugs has been debated for many years. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs looked at this issue when it considered the classification of cannabis and concluded that no causal link had been established since there were many other factors which might act as gateways. Obvious examples are alcohol, tobacco, solvents and stimulants. The fact is that the great majority of cannabis users never move on, thankfully, mercifully, to class A drugs.
	Suggestions have been made that cannabis smoked today is up to 20 times as strong as that smoked 30 years ago. The data that the Forensic Science Service analysed on cannabis seizures do not support that contention. It is correct that some of the new indoor-grown strains of cannabis now on the market are stronger than that which was smoked 30 years ago, but by a factor of two or three times stronger, and not 20 times, as many have suggested. On the other hand, much imported herbal cannabis and cannabis resin is little different from that used 30 years ago.
	I turn now to the possible link between cannabis use and the development of mental illness and, in particular, schizophrenia. It is true that some research material was published in the British Medical Journal as recently as last November. I know that some noble Lords have taken a keen interest in that issue. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs considered it in depth during its deliberations, but it concluded that no clear causal link had been demonstrated. On the other hand, the council was clear that cannabis use, unquestionably, could worsen an existing condition of schizophrenia. The council will continue to monitor any developments in research.
	As regards the possible link between cannabis use and the development of lung diseases, clearly the smoking of any substance is potentially dangerous. However, those who seek to draw inferences from the number of premature deaths caused by tobacco smoking need to be very cautious. While the smoking of cannabis is undoubtedly harmful, cannabis users generally smoke fewer cigarettes per day than do tobacco smokers, and most give up in their thirties, so limiting the long-term exposure that we know is the critical factor in cigarette-induced lung cancer.
	No approach to the drugs problem is without risk, but we believe that the strategy I have outlined provides the best possible opportunity to bring credibility to our drugs education, in particular to sharpen up our education messages to young people on cannabis and to get the priorities of law enforcement and treatment directed at class A drugs. This strategy has widespread support, not only from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, but also from the police and all the major organisations working with drug misusers.
	It is proposed that the draft order will be brought into force on 29th January 2004 to coincide with the date when the related provisions contained in the Criminal Justice Bill, which I have mentioned, would also be brought into effect if they are approved by this House. That is why the Government are proposing the draft order now rather than waiting until the Criminal Justice Bill has been approved by this House. I commend the changes proposed in this order.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th September be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, to insert "but this House notes that the order may lead to increased use of cannabis with risks to the health of young people and regrets that the order is being made before the Government's proposals concerning class C drugs have been finalised".

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, as ever, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her characteristically thorough explanation of the Government's proposals. However, even her professionalism cannot disguise the fact that the Government are in the most enormous muddle over their drugs policy. This is no theoretical muddle, it is one with practical and serious consequences for the health and behaviour of a significant proportion of our population, in particular our young people. That is why I have tabled this amendment.
	I shall come to the flaws in the Government's case in a moment, but first I begin with a word of thanks. Through the usual channels, the Government have arranged this debate so that noble Lords who wish to attend and participate can do so at a reasonable length and at a reasonable hour. Contrast this with the position in the other place. Whatever one's views on cannabis, we can all agree that it is a topic which arouses strong opinions. When this regulation came before the other place, the Government allocated it a total of one-and-a-half hours for debate. It is clear, on reading the debate in Hansard, that many potential contributions went unheard. The debate on the regulation was followed by a debate on the Mersey Tunnels Bill, which was not time limited. Which measure was the more important? Which commands greater public interest? The answer is obvious. The Government often express the concern that people consider that Parliament has little relevance. If the Government really think that one-and-a-half hours was sufficient time to debate cannabis, one can see why the general public might believe that Parliament is indeed out of touch.
	I wish to make one final point about the debate held in the other place. Given the importance that the Government have accorded to their drugs strategy—and referred to again by the noble Baroness in her remarks—it would have been good if the Home Secretary could have attended that debate to hear the views expressed, instead of leaving it to his Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Caroline Flint, to try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
	I turn to the remarks of the noble Baroness. In my view, to make sense of the Government's policy, you have to believe one or both of the following: first, that cannabis use is not specifically harmful; and, secondly, that reclassifying cannabis from class B to class C does not send any signal on its acceptability. I should like to examine both of those propositions.
	First, I address the proposition that cannabis use is not specifically harmful. The link between cannabis use and later depression, anti-social behaviour, psychoses or schizophrenia has been significantly strengthened by various new studies. In her opening remarks, the noble Baroness referred to the British Medical Journal of 23rd November 2002. She passed over it quite lightly, but it contains reports of four heavy studies covering 50,000 army conscripts in Sweden, 1,600 students in the state of Victoria in Australia and 1,000 people in Dunedin, New Zealand. It is hardly a lightweight study. It covers many parts of the world.
	One of the key conclusions of that research is that people who start smoking cannabis in adolescence are at the greatest risk of developing mental health problems. Researchers have concluded that eliminating cannabis use in the UK population could reduce cases of schizophrenia by as much as 13 per cent. Research on cannabis and its link to mental disorders is coming through at an ever-growing rate. In the view of Professor Edwards of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs—a body referred to by the noble Baroness—we are in a rapidly changing field of knowledge, and new knowledge is making cannabis look more dangerous, not less.
	The effect of cannabis on the brain has been analysed by a distinguished expert on brain processes. Professor Susan Greenfield—properly known to your Lordships as the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield—wrote in the Observer on 18th August 2002:
	"I challenge any advocate of cannabis to state what a 'safe dose' is. Until they do, surely it is irresponsible to send out positive signals, however muted?".
	She went on to say:
	"We do know cannabis smoke contains the same constituents as that of tobacco: however, it is now thought that three or four cannabis cigarettes a day are equivalent to 20 or more tobacco cigarettes, regarding damage to the lining of the bronchus, while the concentration of carcinogens in cannabis smoke is actually higher than that in cigarettes".
	It also, she said, modifies the configuration of the networks of brain cell connections. This will make you see the world in a different way, characteristically one depleted of any motivation.
	Evidence such as this suggests that cannabis can cause, at the very least, impairment in attention span and cognitive performance, and we do not truly know the full potential that regular use of cannabis might have.
	Similarly, we do not yet know the full extent to which cannabis potency has increased since scientific experiments on the drug first took place 30 years ago. The noble Baroness quoted from remarks made by Caroline Flint in another place on 29th October about the evidence of forensic scientists that cannabis is no stronger than it was 30 years ago. But some forms of cannabis, such as sensimilla and skunk, have only recently become cultivated in this country and it is too soon for the effects of such strong herbal forms to be fully understood.
	Recently a journalist, Tony Thompson, wrote in the Observer, on 2nd November 2003, about a new form of high quality cannabis now being imported from South Africa called dagga. We cannot yet establish the potency of many of these types of cannabis which are new to our shores, or for that matter the consequences of excessive smoking. The Government have to admit that they cannot know the full physical and mental effects of repeated cannabis use, and especially of stronger, more potent strains. In the absence of certainty on those important points, one has to ask: why change the law?
	As to the second proposition, that reclassifying cannabis will not send a signal to people, particularly young people, that the dangers of using it are not as great as once thought, changing the law so that cannabis is reclassified as a class C drug appears to be seen as necessary by the Government, according to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, to reflect a shift in public opinion and to separate the drug from the issues associated with harder drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine.
	But cannabis, which is now a class B drug, is already quite clearly separated from heroin and crack cocaine, both of which are in class A. I cannot see how making cannabis a class C drug will emphasise the perils of heroin. But making it a class C drug will serve to undermine the message as to its risks.
	I usually labour in your Lordships' House in decent obscurity, but since my name appeared in connection with this amendment I have been besieged. I had no idea about the strength of public feeling; about the dangers of the signal being sent by the downgrading of cannabis to class C. Public opinion is concerned on two points: first, that downgrading will increase drug use and, secondly, that the increased use of cannabis will lead to the increased use of other, harder drugs—the gateway effect referred to by the noble Baroness.
	An e-mail from Mrs Gillian Broadfoot is typical of the many that I have received. She wrote:
	"I am the mother of a teenager who is now 16, who used cannabis for two years without my knowledge, but who changed quite dramatically in his behaviour and attitudes as a result. He left school when he turned 16, having lost all motivation, and his school work having deteriorated steadily. His health suffered too, and when we discovered that he was using cannabis it was a shock, but even more so that a large number of his peers were too. I work amongst drug-addicted young people and I have yet to meet one who did not begin by using cannabis, believing it was not harmful. It has certainly proved, in my experience, to be a gateway drug".
	Is Mrs Broadfoot right that liberalising cannabis laws will result in more people using it and possibly more people having problems with cannabis and other drugs? The former government drugs tsar, Keith Hellawell, certainly thinks so. Asked whether the change in the law would lead to more drug-taking, Hellawell answered:
	"The evidence from elsewhere is that it does. The people who have been deterred from taking cannabis because it is illegal will certainly now have the impression that it is all right to do it".
	Asked if he thought there would be a connected increase in crime, he replied, "Yes".
	Downgrading can only encourage cannabis use—it certainly cannot discourage its use. Users will be drawn to the dealers and tempted to try other, harder drugs. Drug use is a consequence of a lifestyle, in which cannabis, because it is more available, tends to be the first drug that people encounter. One has to accept that the choice then to take cocaine or ecstasy is a consequence of an individual's predisposition to seek and use drugs. But why make it any easier for someone with a predisposition to use drugs to start climbing that tragic ladder? How will this, in the words of the noble Baroness, break the cycle?
	In the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill, on 7th July this year, I referred to a pre-teen drugs misuse survey carried out in Glasgow. The noble Baroness very kindly agreed to look into the matter further. In a letter I received on 3rd November, she expanded upon the disturbing statistics. She wrote:
	"The research found that the anti-heroin messages of recent years seem to have been well absorbed by this age group. Nevertheless, it concluded that by the age of 12, a small proportion of pupils will already have started misusing drugs and whilst principally confined to cannabis, for some pupils this early age of onset involves other drugs. This is worrying, particularly where heroin and other class A drugs are involved".
	Phrases such as the "age of onset" used to describe pre-teen cannabis smoking suggest that the noble Baroness sees the habits of 10 to 12-year-olds as the initial stages of more serious drug-taking. What message does downgrading cannabis send to the 10 to 12 year-olds of Glasgow?
	I suggest to the House that the two main arguments behind the Government's reclassification—cannabis is not truly harmful and reclassification sends no signal—do not stand up to critical examination. I am afraid the Government's case is not only illogical; it borders on the deceptive. While the Government are proposing, with a good deal of publicity, to downgrade cannabis from class B to class C through this regulation, they are at the same time proposing in the Criminal Justice Bill—currently before your Lordships' House, as the noble Baroness has said—to upgrade the penalties for all class C drugs, making possession an arrestable offence. No matter that in 2000 there were 70,000 cannabis-related arrests and only 331 for all the other 117 drugs currently in the class C category.
	This was a classic attempt by the Government to spin. They are telling those who believe that cannabis law should be liberalised that they are reducing the category from class B to class C, while telling those who want to take a tough line on drugs that they are increasing the penalties for all class C drugs.
	Peter Lilley, speaking in the debate in the other place, concluded:
	"The Government have got the worst of all possible worlds. They will simultaneously encourage more people to use the drug because people will know that there is no effective punishment for its use, but it will remain illegal and thus be available only through illegal gangs".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/03; col. 355.]
	Following extensive debate in your Lordships' House, the Government have seen the illogicality of that position and have very kindly agreed to introduce amendments to affect the decoupling of cannabis and other class C drugs in the Criminal Justice Bill. How will they do that? We do not yet know because we have yet to see their proposals. That is the reason for the second half of my amendment.
	Finally, a thought for the police, who are going to have to interpret and enforce this muddle. How can the Government expect the policy to be enforced fairly or evenly across different parts of the country and, no less importantly, across different racial communities? That patchwork quilt must surely be a recipe for increasing distrust and dislike of the police—the very reverse of what we should seek to achieve if we are to be truly successful in our fight against drugs.
	I received an e-mail from Mrs Jan Berry, the chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales. She says:
	"Confusion surrounding the future legal status of cannabis has been caused by the decision to reclassify. Whilst I can understand the reasoning for the reclassification, the message being sent out appears wholly inappropriate, particularly as the jury is still out on the longer-term health implications. I believe concerns about the priority given to policing cannabis have been addressed already, without the need for legislative change. This time and energy currently being given to reclassifying cannabis could, we believe, be used far more effectively to rebalance the UK drugs strategy, particularly in respect of education and treatment. The fact remains that cannabis does not need to be reclassified to be reprioritised".
	To conclude, the Government's gyrations would be almost comic if they did not have such potentially serious and tragic consequences for our society. The Government should not seek to push the order through in face of the evidence against it and the adverse public reaction. They should first clarify their position as regards their proposals for cannabis and other class C drugs in the Criminal Justice Bill, allow time for proper consideration and, after taking into account all the factors and research that have emerged since the reclassification was first put forward, introduce revised proposals—if any are required. I hope that the Minister will seek to withdraw the regulation before us tonight. In the mean time, I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "but this House notes that the order may lead to increased use of cannabis with risks to the health of young people and regrets that the order is being made before the Government's proposals concerning class C drugs have been finalised".—(Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.)

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, in rising to support this order—but to speak against the amendment—I do not do so without reservations about matters closely related to it. The order is a step in the right direction and, I am glad to say, it is based on sound evidence and expert opinion. It would have been outrageous if the Government, having set up the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, had not taken its advice, as well as that of the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place and the Runciman Committee, that cannabis should be reclassified to class C. All those organisations considered the evidence carefully from an expert point of view and reached their conclusions.
	The purpose of the classification system is to make clear the differences in levels of harm and danger associated with various drugs. It is clear to the experts, who have looked at all the most up-to-date evidence, that cannabis, although not without dangers for some users, rightly belongs in class C. That is why I am concerned about the Government's attempt to create two kinds of class C drugs. I often wonder into which category that legal drug tobacco would be put if it had been discovered last year, since 120,000 people die every year from smoking tobacco, at great cost to the public purse and great distress to patients and their families. It is undoubtedly the tobacco that is often smoked with cannabis that causes some of the lung problems.
	The Government have also responded to the clear benefits demonstrated in the Lambeth experiment, where the police have told us that hundreds of hours of police time were saved by the presumption against arrest for personal possession, equivalent to 1.8 full-time police officers. If that were replicated across the country, I understand from research by Rowntree that we could save £50 million, which represents 500 full-time officers. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us something about how that large chunk of police time will be redirected once this order is in place.
	The Lambeth experiment has not been without its critics and rumours have abounded. However, Lambeth police tell us that there is no evidence of the rumoured influx of dealers or customers since the proportion of people cautioned for possession who came from outside the borough remained constant during the experiment. Besides, when the system is rolled out nationally there would be no question of drugs tourism. Nor was there any evidence of increased usage. A police survey of local schools did not reveal any reported increase in pupils being intoxicated. However, at the same time, the number of arrests for class A dealing offences increased by around 10 per cent and there was a 44 per cent increase in arrests for possession of cocaine. Clearly Lambeth police were making good use of their freed up time.
	It is important to send out the message that if we reclassify cannabis we are not legalising it and there is no green light for smoking cannabis. But the great gain to be had is that we can get much tougher and more effective in tackling the terribly dangerous hard drugs and their dealers. That message must be coupled with even more effort at educating young people about the harm caused particularly by harder drugs and being honest about any dangers associated with cannabis. There is no evidence that the cannabis being sold in this country now is any stronger on average than it was 20 years ago—I accept the Minister's statement about that—but there are people such as schizophrenics for whom the dangers of using cannabis may be greater than for other members of the population. So it is important to be clear and honest and keep this particular matter under review.
	The main thing is that the messages we give to young people are credible. That is why we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have long called for cannabis to be reclassified. All young people know that it is much less dangerous than class A or B drugs. The law is an ass if it does not reflect that. We know that its use is very widespread. When this matter was debated in another place, it was claimed that about half of 16 year-olds have tried it. It could be argued that there is already a green light with that generation. The young know that cannabis is not as harmful as class A or B drugs and they know that the majority of cannabis users never go on to use other drugs and most use it for only a short period of their lives. What we need to do for them, if they choose to use it, is to protect them from contact with dealers in hard drugs and organised criminals.
	It is pretty clear to me that the gateway theory is not credible; on that I again agree with the Minister. The excellent research document by DrugScope entitled Cannabis and the Gateway Hypothesis said:
	"Gateway theory is often misunderstood. It is not about cannabis leading to harder drugs, it is about common profiles, environment, experience and access".
	The main danger is that the Government have not addressed the thorny issue of providing the many existing cannabis users—who are in every other way law abiding citizens—with a way of obtaining their supply without having to get it from dealers and criminals whose main aim is to get them onto harder, more addictive and more profitable drugs. Although people have taken the matter into their own hands, and already 50 per cent of cannabis used in this country is home grown, it is still done at risk of arrest. If the objective is to cut the so-called link between cannabis and hard drugs, which I believe is mainly where and by whom they are supplied, why will the Government not make it clear that growing your own for your own use does not risk arrest?
	Evidence from the Netherlands suggests that decriminalising cannabis use does not lead either to increased usage nor to increased use of hard drugs. Whereas the average age of heroin users in this country is 21 and falling, the average age of heroin users in the Netherlands is 45 and rising. I am not advocating that the fudged arrangements in existence in the Netherlands should be adopted here—far from it—but we have not tackled the problem if we do not tackle the supply. It is said that, although most cannabis users do not go onto hard drugs, most hard drug users started with cannabis. I believe the major reason for this is that they have to get cannabis from criminal dealers, and those dealers make it their business to try to gain a customer for life—however short and miserable that life might be—by getting the user onto hard, addictive drugs. That is the only link with crime. There is no evidence that people steal to support a cannabis habit as it is fairly cheap.
	I now turn to the guidelines on arrest published by the Association of Chief Police Officers two months ago. First, I should like to ask the Government on whose advice have they added a presumption in favour of arrest for possession of cannabis now that it is to be a class C drug? There was no such recommendation in the report of the Select Committee in another place, the Runciman report or in the report of the advisory council, nor were changes to the arrangements for arrest and sentencing mentioned in the Government's drugs strategy. Yet, while reclassifying cannabis to class C, the Government have now introduced a presumption for arrest for class C drugs for the first time. To solve the problem that raises for other class C drugs, they now propose to introduce another separate category. Is cannabis now a class B2 drug, or do we now have in effect a new class D, and if so, on what evidence basis? That is the muddle that I identify.
	Having said that, I am most concerned about the discriminatory nature of the guidelines. It seems that you can now smoke cannabis without getting arrested unless you happen to be under 18 or have a mental disability. According to the guidelines, in addition to smoking cannabis in public view, causing disorder, smoking it near youth clubs and schools or being a regular offender—that is perfectly reasonable—we now have a presumption that anyone under 18 or a "vulnerable person" will be arrested and taken to the police station for a warning or other such measure. A "vulnerable person" is described as,
	"a person who may be mentally disordered or mentally handicapped or incapable of understanding the significance of questions or replies".
	Despite the fact that the next sentence of the guidelines says that,
	"such people should be dealt with within the terms of this strategy by being arrested, their own personal welfare and interests being paramount",
	I am most concerned about this. How can it possibly be in the interests of the welfare of such a person as those described to be hauled off to a police station and questioned? How terrifying is that for someone with a mental handicap? Surely this is a role for joined-up services and multi-agency working? Why not have a police officer contact the person's GP or social services instead of this draconian response, dragging the person into the criminal justice system for doing something for which a similar non-handicapped person would no longer be penalised? In the case of a young person, surely there is a more appropriate response.
	My other concern is about consistency. Here I echo many of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. These guidelines give high levels of discretion to the police and there are indications that already the police in Scotland are saying that they will arrest in the vast majority of cases. How are the Government intending to monitor the consistency of the operation of the guidelines? I hope that the Minister can enlighten us. Already we have enormous discrepancies in police practice. The proportion of cannabis offences resulting only in a caution varies across police forces in England and Wales from 87 per cent at the highest to 29 per cent at the lowest. This is a matter that has long caused great concern to people with MS who used cannabis products for therapeutic reasons. While I was delighted to see recently that NICE has now confirmed these benefits and we are close to getting a licensed pharmaceutical product, the Government really need to do something about the inconsistency across police forces.
	Finally, I am most concerned about the list of misuse of drugs offences for which the penalty is being increased in the Criminal Justice Bill. For example, it seems that you can now be liable for a 14-year custodial sentence for allowing someone to smoke a joint in your house, despite the fact that that person would not be arrested for it. Does that really make sense from a Government who claim to be responding to the reality of the drugs situation in this country?
	The rise in cannabis usage over the past 30 years referred to by the Minister is a clear indication that the way in which the law and the justice system have been dealing with it up to now has not worked. That is why I welcome this move forward. Yet instead of courageously taking good advice and properly decriminalising personal use of cannabis, the Government are hedging the order around with other things that return us in effect to the status quo. Actually, the situation is worse than the status quo if we count the discriminatory and potentially damaging nature of the ACPO guidelines.
	I have mentioned my reservations. I can hardly oppose the order and I do not, but I am deeply concerned about the way in which its potential benefits may be neutralised by this timid Government.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords—

Lord Adebowale: My Lords—

Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords—

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the Cross Benches.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, in his amendment to the order. Until we have proof that changing the classification of cannabis will not lead to its increased abuse, its classification should not be changed. I do not think that we have that proof, or that experience in other countries suggests that if we were to liberalise the use of cannabis we should not regret it.
	Having said that, I find it unacceptable that the use of drugs of whatever class should not be permitted for medical reasons. It is well known that many sufferers from multiple sclerosis derive great benefit from smoking cannabis, which alleviates the pain that they suffer. Taken in tablet form, many sufferers do not find it nearly so effective. Sufferers from some forms of cancer find that it helps the unpleasant side effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy.
	Long ago, tincture of heroin used to be prescribed by GPs for bad coughs, and was very effective. Heroin was the principle ingredient of Dr Collis Brown's Chlorodyne, a remedy for diarrhoea much used by travellers in third-world countries. After heroin ceased to be an ingredient, it never worked so well. Cocaine was sometimes used as a dental anaesthetic. I frequently had it as my dentist was allergic to Novocaine. It was actually much more effective than Novocaine and, what is more, a delicious sense of euphoria was a pleasant side effect. However, where such drugs are used for medical reasons, for a very limited time until the necessity ceases, or occasionally, they do not usually lead to addiction. Where they are used indefinitely to alleviate an incurable condition, I do not think it matters much whether they lead to addiction.
	I have never been able to see why people who are suffering and whose only palliative is a class A or B drug should be deprived of their only effective medication because it might fall into the wrong hands and some silly fool might become an addict. That is getting our priorities wrong. I hope that the Government will think very seriously about this.

Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I find myself in a very unusual position, in that I am supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, because I want to speak against the order. I shall do so by asking the Government four questions.
	Is cannabis harmless? Cannabis is a mind-altering drug that has a ravaging effect on the brain, as Hamish Turner, the president of the Coroners' Society stated. He said that it was a significant contributory factor to 10 in every 100 deaths that were put down to suicide or accident. Fourteen year-olds taking cannabis are 50 times more likely to damage their brain. Police experts say that the drug is so powerful that it can stay in the blood and impair judgment at the wheel of a car for up to two weeks. It is linked to schizophrenia, hallucinations and delirium. One has only to walk the streets in certain areas to see the poor, delirious, hallucinated creatures out there.
	A Swedish study found that cannabis users were 18 times more likely than non-users to take their lives by jumping from a height. Noble Lords may not have heard of James Taylor. He was 31 years old. He hanged himself in his Torquay flat. He had smoked cannabis since he was 15. His mother, Mary Taylor, said that it destroyed her son and her family life.
	We know that cannabis is addictive. It damages short-term memory. Those who smoke cannabis find themselves in no man's land. They may enter a state of euphoria, but it does not last long.
	Would downgrading cannabis stop people taking harder drugs? Research shows that there is a progression from cannabis to drugs such as cocaine and heroin. The New Zealand study to which reference was made showed that cannabis users were 60 times more likely to take other illegal drugs.
	Angela Watkinson, a Conservative MP for Upminster, slammed the idea that reducing cannabis to a class C drug would free police to deal with class A drugs. She noted that cannabis is a gateway to class A drugs and would cause more problems. Having worked in the community, I can confirm that what she said was true.
	The zero-tolerance approach has been proved to work better in Sweden. That country is tough on drugs and the law is consistently enforced. Only 9 per cent of Swedes aged between 16 and 59 have tried illegal drugs, in contrast to 34 per cent in Britain.
	I come to my third question. Would relaxing cannabis laws free the police to tackle more serious crime? I could tell your Lordships of cases where women have sat on park benches all night, not daring to go into their homes because their children are cannabis takers. Their handbags are rifled. The little tins in which they keep the money for the gas—some noble Lords may have forgotten those days—are empty when the bill comes. Telephones and gas metres are rifled to feed the cannabis habit.
	I shall not go into the details of those cases, but I shall highlight the Lambeth study to which reference has been made. Lambeth police's experimental approach, which involves verbally warning, rather than arresting, possessors of cannabis for personal use, led to open drug dealing in the streets. I say it because I saw it. There was a huge escalation of hard drug dealing and drug use even among children. Children were led to cashpoints to draw out money to pay drug users, even if they did not use drugs themselves. They did it because otherwise they were told that they were being square.
	Chief Superintendent Brian Moore said:
	"The centre of Brixton is a 24-hour crack supermarket".
	Deputy Assistant Commissioner Michael Fuller, who has now been promoted, stated that children were going to school while "stoned". That means having taken drugs. Parents were worried that relaxing the laws could make the problem even worse.
	Children themselves felt that the police, by their liberal approach, were sending them mixed messages about drug use. Labour MP, Kate Hoey, fiercely criticised the scheme, saying:
	"There are more drug dealers on the streets than ever. Many young children are going to school in the morning zonked out on a very hard kind of cannabis".
	Fred Brougham, chairman of the Police Federation, stated:
	"Young people were telling everybody that cannabis is now OK, that it is OK to possess it in the streets, in the schools".
	He also said that,
	"crack abusers and crack dealers are becoming more visible and more active",
	as the barriers break down.
	My last question to the Government is: are the Government hoping to eradicate the black market and bring the proceeds from cannabis into the formal economy? You do not get cannabis for nothing. Someone is selling it. What is the Government's aim? Are they saying that you can sell cannabis and improve the economy of the country? Is it becoming formal? What is this about?
	In Holland, where cannabis can be legally sold in licensed cafes, most of that sold is from the illegal crop—the very strong cannabis. Anyone who has recently been to Holland can tell you that the sight of beggars on the streets is nothing compared to the zonked-out creatures you see when you walk the streets there. Even in the licensed Dutch cafes, 70 per cent of cannabis is estimated to be illegal stock, therefore no tax is paid on it and the economy cannot benefit.
	The black community, especially the mothers, ask, "Is this another 'sus' on us: to zonk our children out?" For whatever reason, it is prevalent in the black community. I ask the Government to be mindful of the next generation and what they are really saying. They have said that cannabis is not becoming legal, but the message going out to young people is, "You can smoke as much as you like as long as you are not caught". If the police are so busy, how many times will they knock on my door and ask me whether I have any cannabis plants inside? I do not know.
	What does all that mean? It means that even if cannabis were legal, most drug dealers would continue to deal in illegal drugs and would probably not switch over to that which is supposedly newly legalised. This is not the best move the Government have made.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, who has spoken so movingly. I suspect that during the past few days she has received many letters about this subject. I certainly have. Many of the letters I have received have been from parents of teenagers who point out the obvious; namely, that reclassification and the new policy of the police only to caution sends out entirely the wrong signal to young people and makes their task as parents almost impossible.
	I know that the Minister denies that, but the new policy does tell young people that smoking cannabis is okay, whatever is the Government's intention. It tells young people that smoking cannabis is okay when it is nothing of the kind. Not only does it all too often lead to the use of heroin and crack cocaine, traded by the very same dealers from whom the cannabis is obtained, but it is a very dangerous drug itself, as I shall seek to show in a moment.
	We cannot say with certainty that more people will be introduced to heroin and cocaine as a result of declassification, coupled with the new police policy of merely warning cannabis users, but it is infinitely depressing, as the noble Baroness mentioned a moment ago, to read comments such as those of Chief Superintendent Moore of the Metropolitan Police, who has worked in Lambeth and Brixton. He said that the introduction of the cannabis pilot scheme in Lambeth has resulted in the centre of Brixton becoming,
	"a 24-hour crack supermarket".
	What we do know with absolute certainty is that saying that cannabis is okay will lead to more young people trying the drug. Yet we all know that using cannabis is not okay. It is a mind-bending substance—very mind-bending. The Minister said that the advisory council does not accept that the cannabis being traded today is stronger than that used 30 years ago. But that is not the view of many experts. It is certainly not the view of Dr Ian Oliver, independent consultant to the UN Drug Control Programme, who said that it is 10 times stronger than that smoked by the "flower-power" generation of the 1960s. That is an expert opinion that cannot simply be discarded because people sitting on the advisory council do not agree with it.
	Cannabis is a drug which reduces concentration and slows down reactions. Its use accounts for two-thirds of drug-related road deaths. It is a drug which affects the memory and a person's ability to learn. In societies where its use is habitual, one can see its effect on people's ability to work regularly and to hold down jobs. To put it bluntly, it nurtures layabouts. I have seen it. It is a substance that many experts say is far more likely to cause cancer and lung damage than smoking tobacco.
	But, worst of all, it is a drug which increases the risk of mental illness. I find it impossible to accept the conclusions of the advisory council on this matter. In April this year, Professor John Henry, a toxicologist at Imperial College, said at the Royal Society of Medicine conference in London:
	"Regular cannabis smokers develop mental illness. There is a four-fold increase in schizophrenia and there is a four-fold increase in major depression".
	That is not only his opinion. In 2002, a study at King's College London, led by Dr Louise Arsenault, showed that cannabis can trigger schizophrenia and is not chosen only by people predisposed to develop the illness. In the past year or so, as mentioned by my noble friend, three other studies have linked the drug with depression and schizophrenia—one of them a Dutch study, which found that those taking large amounts of cannabis were seven times more likely to develop a psychotic illness.
	Two months ago, the papers reported the suicide of Charles King, a student aged 23 who developed a mental illness induced by cannabis use. He left a note saying:
	"Cannabis has ruined my life".
	I have to tell your Lordships that I personally know only too well that cannabis does ruin people's lives. It has come close to ruining the life of someone very close to me who has suffered from schizophrenia as a result of cannabis use. That is the diagnosis. So, do not tell me that cannabis is pretty harmless.
	My attention has been drawn to some of the irresponsible rubbish put out by government-funded bodies. Connexions, an advice service set up by the Department for Education and Skills, has published a leaflet telling people how to smoke cannabis and then purports to lists its effects:
	"It can make you feel relaxed, chilled out and giggly—more sociable and chatty—you may get an attack of the munchies",
	meaning you feel the need to eat everything in sight.
	"You may feel paranoid, which means you think everyone is looking at you".
	That is the effect of cannabis in the minds of the irresponsible people who drafted that pamphlet. I am told that it has recently been withdrawn or banned following public protests, but not before it had been sent to 3,500 secondary schools. The fact that it went out in the first place makes absolute nonsense of the claim made in another place by Caroline Flint, the Under-Secretary of State, that the Government's message remains that cannabis is illegal and harmful. It is no use parroting those words when all their actions result in the message being entirely different; the message being that cannabis is not all that serious a drug and, "won't do you much harm".
	Whether the Government wanted this to happen or not, the message which has come across since the change in policy is that cannabis is okay. That message is irresponsible and wrong. I support the amendment.

Lord Adebowale: My Lords, this debate is hotting up nicely. It is obvious that I shall now be labelled somewhat irresponsible as I am about to admit that I am the Chief Executive of Turning Point, a social care organisation which deals with around 30,000 people with substance misuse challenges, 10,000 of whom are young people. I also happen to be a member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. When one looks at the members of that advisory council, I find it hard to believe that they arrived overnight at the advice they gave to Government. Certainly, looking at their honourable qualifications, it beggars belief that those people are irresponsible or arrived at their conclusions lightly.
	Perhaps I may comment on some of the points raised. I support the decision by the Government to reclassify cannabis from class B to class C. Like many noble Lords, I do not think that the Government go far enough. The reclassification reflects public attitudes to cannabis and accepts the fact that a large number of people use it. I say that with full regard to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids. I, too, have been to Holland. I have worked in Brixton and walked the streets of Lewisham. I understand, because I talk to young people and, indeed, live on an estate where many young people smoke cannabis. The problem with the debate is not about the classification of cannabis. No one has said that leaving cannabis as a class B drug—I am sure that some noble Lords would be happy to see it classified as class A—would be a credible solution to the problems mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, and, indeed, the noble Lord.
	Surely, sending young people to prison as a result of their cannabis use cannot be reasonable treatment. Indeed, the Government's own figures on the use of prison and punishment as a response to drug misuse give cause for concern. The latest report on drug treatment and testing orders shows that 53 per cent of prisoners discharged from such orders in 1998 were reconvicted within two years of discharge compared to 59 per cent of those who did not complete a drug treatment and testing order.
	So there are serious questions to be asked. If we are to keep the current classification of cannabis or, indeed, increase it and thus increase penalties and arrest more people and put them in prison, how will that help people? How will that help the young people mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids? I fear that that is heading in the wrong direction.
	Furthermore, we need to understand what young people and many members of the public who smoke cannabis—I have to say on a daily basis—understand from their own experiences about it and its relation to other drugs. We have to deal with the facts. The fact of the matter is that cannabis is not the same as crack cocaine or heroin. As much as noble Lords may want to believe that that is the case, it is not.
	We need to be aware of all the facts and to encourage intelligent discussion. When cannabis is compared with other drugs against criteria such as mortality, toxicity, addictiveness and its relationship with crime, it is less harmful to the individual and society than other illicit drugs and even alcohol. That is understood by the public, and it is certainly understood by young people.
	The evidence of the drug's long-term effect on mental health is not so clear-cut. No doubt we can all name a professor or an expert who will say that smoking cannabis causes schizophrenia. Indeed, in 1933 at the World Health Organisation the Egyptian delegate stood up and said that cannabis causes people to go crazy. We have all see the film produced by the Americans in 1933 called "Reefer Madness", which claimed that smoking cannabis turns you into a raving lunatic. These statements are simply not helpful; they do not accord with the facts.
	People with mental health problems may be more likely to be drawn to the drug. We have seen that at Turning Point; I have seen it from my own experience of more than 20 years working with socially excluded people, many of whom take drugs including alcohol. It may exacerbate mental health problems in people with a pre-existing mental illness; so will poverty; so will depression; and so will not having a job. But the evidence suggests that while cannabis consumption is increasing, the incidence of schizophrenia is not. That is a fact which would suggest that cannabis is not to blame.
	I do not believe that reclassifying cannabis will lead to more people using it. Currently, in the UK at least 8 million people use the drug, while 2 million people use it regularly. My discussions with young people informed me that many already socially accept the drug and that any change will be of little relevance to them, other than they will face fewer risks of being criminalised for its use, which, to be honest, they welcome.
	There may be an increase among those already using the drug. Evidence from Australia has shown that although cannabis decriminalisation, which was introduced in some states, did not lead to new cannabis users, those who used it daily slightly increased the amounts they smoked.
	I am also doubtful—and I think we should be very doubtful—about the idea of cannabis as the gateway drug. The Government's own research has shown through The road to ruin? that there is no evidence that cannabis acts as a gateway drug to other drugs. There is some evidence, however, that cigarettes and alcohol do. Indeed, again, when I talked to many of the 30,000 or so people that Turning Point sees each year, they talked not about cannabis, when one examined their drug history, but about going to the pub, having a drink, having their inhibitions relaxed and then being introduced to cannabis. If we are going to talk about gateway drugs, let us talk about all the gateway drugs and include alcohol and cigarettes.
	That is why I believe that we need to have a sophisticated and credible approach to this drug. With so many people using it and, frankly, so many comfortable with its use, we need to get the message right and get across the facts in a way that is accurate, non-confrontational and relevant to young people's lives. I also strongly believe that, with so many people buying the drug from the black market, we need to get the legal position right too.
	The fact is that day in and day out, tens of thousands of young people make contact with dealers to buy cannabis. Although most buy what they need and leave, many, because they are forced to deal with people selling other drugs, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, such as heroin, cocaine or Ecstasy, are more likely to buy and use those other drugs. In effect, it is not the use of the drug that encourages people to move to harder drugs but the existence of a single drugs black market. With the reclassification, cannabis possession will carry a minimal risk of prosecution, while selling it will carry a stiff penalty. To be clear, the Government's decision to increase the penalty within the class C band to 14 years makes selling it a high-risk criminal activity.
	I must be honest: I am a little confused by the legal acrobatics that the Home Secretary has performed to reclassify cannabis. To recount, following the announcement in June 2002 of the bold step to reclassify the drug to class C, there have been two rather confusing steps backwards. First, there is the move to apply a maximum of 14 years for supply of the drug, despite other class C drugs carrying a five-year maximum. Secondly, as your Lordships will be aware, under the Criminal Justice Bill currently passing through the House, cannabis possession is to be made an arrestable offence.
	If I am not mistaken, we will have created a separate classification for cannabis, which is none too distant from the position from which we are supposed to be moving away. In addition, what is to become of cannabis oil? As your Lordships will be aware, certain forms of cannabis oil extracted from the raw plant are regarded as a class A drug. What will the changes mean for that form?
	Is it therefore any wonder that the public, rather than receiving a credible message about the drug cannabis, are confused by those moves and unsure how they will be affected—no doubt leading to further public disregard and disaffection for the legal system? That also brings into question the suitability of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and whether the current classification system is working at all.
	Perhaps it is time that we took a good look at our drugs laws to reassess them to see how they work in today's society, because much has changed since 1971. The rationale behind the reclassification should be to get our message credibly and clearly across and to separate the market for cannabis from those for hard drugs. Unfortunately, I fear that neither of those objectives will be achieved by the new measures. Indeed, the unique classification of cannabis may well undermine the whole approach. By removing much of the risk of prosecution while sustaining the penalty for supply, the law may provide a perverse incentive to traffic more harmful drugs. If dealers are risking stiffer penalties for cannabis, they are more likely to deal in harder drugs as well.
	Turning to the advice issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers, I am very concerned by its statement that a,
	"person who may be mentally disordered or mentally handicapped or incapable of understanding the significance of questions or replies",
	may be arrested. That very language moves away from our providing appropriate support and help to the most vulnerable.
	Like other noble Lords, I fear that the Government's muddled plans for reclassification may be nothing other than a fudge and something of a face-saving manoeuvre. I fear that the changes will only continue to drive the ever-increasing number of young cannabis users underground by encouraging them to use behind closed doors and to disrespect government and the law by coming into contact with poly-drug dealers. The law will continue to make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding young people and perpetuate an environment of mass public disobedience.
	The Government must listen to the people whom this law will affect the most and move the debate forward. Cannabis is not heroin; it is not crack; it is not as dangerous as either of those drugs. Decriminalise cannabis; separate it from more harmful drugs; provide unbiased and accurate information; provide support and treatment where it is needed; and tackle the real problems facing young people today, such as crime, unemployment, poverty, inequality and injustice.
	We can best prevent harm by empowering young people to make up their own minds about cannabis using credible information and encouraging them to discuss their experiences, rather than hiding or denying them because government and the laws misunderstand them.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, it is with a heavy heart that I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I spent some years in charge of a drugs squad and I have seen the damage that drugs cause. I know that your Lordships would not argue with that; we all agree that they are very damaging. It is unarguable that, if you liberalise and legalise the use of drugs, more people will take them. A good example is the Netherlands, where, according to my information, cannabis use trebled once the law was liberalised. There is no argument on those terms.
	I do not understand the change. If we simply wish to change police activity, the Government could issue instructions to the police—we do not have to change the law. The danger with changing the law and reclassifying drugs is that it sends a powerful signal to youngsters throughout the country. Many people to whom I have talked believe that cannabis is being legalised; they do not understand that it is simply being reclassified. I am at great pains to explain to them that the law is still the same. The government information states that nothing is changing. If nothing is changing, and the police still have the power to arrest, as they do, what is the point of the reclassification? It sends the wrong signal and increases usage, which is the important point.
	I shall not keep noble Lords long. I could speak all night on the subject, and I have done. If we increase the usage of a mind-bending drug—such as alcohol, which is unarguably the same—we must give the police the power and the mechanism to deal with it, but there is no breathalyser for cannabis. People will use more cannabis and drive under the influence of it—they do now. There has been a massive increase in road fatalities of people found to have drugs—of all kinds, admittedly—in their bodies. For that reason alone, it would be a dangerous and retrograde step to send the powerful signal to youngsters that it is okay to smoke dope. Do not do it.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, there are genuinely held differences of view on the best way to handle drugs such as cannabis, which is obviously less dangerous than class A drugs such as crack cocaine. But we have already differentiated—one of the first things that I learned at school was the difference between A and B. We do not have to take steps to differentiate crack cocaine from cannabis; we have already done so.
	I recognise the difficulties for the police with the present classification of cannabis as a class B drug. But the proposal in the order to reclassify it as a class C drug is a mistake, despite the favourable advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. There has been only one reference to the provision in the order—I wish to repeat it on the record—that it will reclassify as class C drugs all cannabis preparations, some of which are now classified as class A drugs and the rest as class B drugs. We must be clear on what we are doing in the order, with which I disagree.
	The extent to which cannabis makes its users more likely to develop a psychotic illness is disputed, although I believe that it has some such effect. I note the Minister's observation that there was clear evidence that it worsens an incipient condition. It would be pretty bad, for example, to have more schizophrenics than at present. That would be a sad affair for the people themselves and their carers. Like many other noble Lords, I am very concerned about the problems of mental health. I have spoken about it in the House on several occasions; for me, it is an extremely important point.
	There is evidence that in some cases cannabis use acts as a gateway to the use of significantly more dangerous drugs. The Minister said that the great majority do not move on to the more dangerous drugs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that the majority do not move on. What sort of an argument is that? What about the minority? That is a point about which this House should be concerned. I was shocked to hear those statements.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Yes, I did say that, but I tried to explain that some cannabis users move on because they obtain their cannabis from dealers who are doing their very best to get them onto hard addictive drugs. That was my explanation.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. That is another reason for not changing the classification of cannabis. It is quite a clear argument against what the noble Baroness was stating. I heard it from some other noble Lords here and was not impressed with the argument from any of them.
	For those reasons, I do not consider that we should agree this order. However, if contrary to my view it does go through, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, in which the House is invited to express the view that the order may lead to increased use of cannabis with the risks to the health of young people. The amendment does not go as far as I would wish, but I support it because it is an expression of an opinion with which I agree.

Lord Rea: My Lords, I suspect that this is one of those debates in which most noble Lords will not change their minds, however eloquent and impassioned the speeches are on one side or the other, or however well informed they are—such as the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale. I will therefore speak for a very short time because I know that whatever I say will not change anyone's mind.
	My credentials for speaking are that for many years I was a general practitioner in an area where there was a high level of drug abuse. I dealt with many people who had problems with drugs, especially heroin, but not once during a lifetime of practice did I ever have to deal with someone who was ill because of the use of cannabis. My other credential is that I was a member of your Lordship's Select Committee on Science and Technology during its inquiry into the scientific and medical evidence for cannabis with a view to examining its use as a medication.
	We obviously looked at the possible harmful effects of cannabis. Nobody denies that there are harmful effects. However, one of the main reasons for reclassifying it is stated in paragraph 4.3 of the report:
	"The acute toxicity of cannabis and the cannabinoids is very low; no-one has ever died as a direct and immediate consequence of recreational or medical use".
	That is extremely important, because all the drugs in classes A and B can cause death very quickly, not only by chronic use.
	If one looks at the long-term effects, certainly, cannabis can affect people's mental health. Paragraph 4.11 states:
	"It is . . . well established that cannabis can exacerbate the symptoms of those already suffering from schizophrenic illness and may worsen the course of the illness; but there is little evidence that cannabis use can precipitate schizophrenia or other mental illness in those not already predisposed to it".
	We have heard about research reported a year ago in the British Medical Journal, but there are other views. That research has to be looked at in the light of further research. It is not the final word. Although cannabis can precipitate some mental illness, it causes nothing like as much harm as alcohol or tobacco. Alcohol can kill people acutely—if they drink a whole bottle of spirits—quite apart from causing lingering death, and we all know what tobacco can do in the long term. Those two substances are not class A, class B or class C—they are not classified at all.
	As regards the Dutch experience, it is true that when cannabis was decriminalised, usage increased for a while. It then went down again and has stayed stable. Far from cannabis being a gateway drug, in those circumstances it seems to satisfy the needs of young people who do not then go on to heroin. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, heroin use is lower in Holland—among Dutch people—than in other European countries. She also said that there is a dwindling band of heroin users who are getting older, but that there are no new users coming into the picture.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that Amsterdam is the drug capital of the world?

Lord Rea: My Lords, I absolutely accept that because people go there from all over the world.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: Why?

Lord Rea: My Lords, I do not need to answer that; it is perfectly clear. The problem with freeing access to drugs in one country is that people go to it like bees to honey. It needs to be approached internationally.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, mentioned the huge public reaction that he has noticed as a result of the order. I suggest that it can seem as if there is a strong public reaction when a highly motivated, small minority gets into gear and has well-organised lobbying material. That is very different from reflecting the majority of public opinion, who, I think, support the order. I support my noble friend on the Front Bench.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I have a few questions for the Minister; I hope that the answers will be of interest to the whole House. As other noble Lords have said, I, too, have had many letters from concerned people about the message that the order will give to our young people and the world beyond.
	My main concern is the moving of class A drugs to class C. Liquid cannabis, cannabinol and cannabinol derivatives (THC) are in the class A category at present. Cannabinol is a crystalline phenol obtained from cannabis; it is very toxic. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that it is not. I looked it up in the Library tonight; it is described as very toxic. I consider that moving the drugs from class A to class C is very dangerous.
	At present, any class B drug prepared for injection counts as a class A drug. Is that also to be moved to class C? That has not been mentioned tonight. What about the dangers of hepatitis and other infections, such as HIV, if it is to be declassed to class C? The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has two delightful boys. I met them the other day. Those are the young people that we must try to protect. I hope that the Minister will look at the order again.
	Last night at dinner, I sat next to a psychologist, Paul Kennedy, who teaches at Oxford University. I discussed the order with him. He said that cannabis is dangerous to the brain and could encourage schizophrenia. I hope that the Government think again about class A drugs and, especially, injecting. I do not worry about long-term disabled people using cannabis if it relieves their symptoms. That is another matter and a different message.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have received letters from all over Scotland on this subject. I know very little about it; I am not an expert and I have not worked with those who have been in trouble with drugs. The letters reflect the fact that people do not want to see Edinburgh or London become like Amsterdam: the second drugs capital of the world.
	These people know what they are talking about from experience in their own families, through their children. Some are doctors dealing with their patients. Others are academics who have studied the subject. I have also received letters from two relatives of people who have been sent to prison for drug dealing. All are absolutely astonished at what the Government are doing.
	I say this: I back the amendment because it is the only amendment we have, but I agree with a very distinguished and senior Back-Bencher on the Government Benches who earlier this afternoon asked me: "What on earth is your party doing not throwing this order out?". However, since this is the only amendment, I shall back it.

Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, we have heard a most moving speech from my noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids, and I believe that the Government should listen to her testimony. I wish to make only three points.
	First, over the years, both as a recorder and as an advocate, I have seen the penalties imposed becoming less and less severe. The lower the penalties imposed, it seems, the greater the use. Secondly, what is the Government's response to Kate Hoey, the Member for Vauxhall? As the elected representative, she has a deep personal knowledge of what is happening in the area. I know, from living in the area for some of the time, that over recent years drug dealers have spread from the centre to some of the most desirable streets in Vauxhall. It takes an enormous effort, as I know personally, to get rid of them. Local mothers with young children in the area are deeply concerned.
	The third and final point I want to make is this. What signal does the Minister believe the Government's proposals for declassification will send to my grandchildren, and those of other noble Lords, shortly to become teenagers? Are they more or less likely to dabble in taking cannabis?

Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, my antennae tell me that perhaps a vote is in the offing and that we have spoken for long enough, but I want to make one or two brief points. I would suggest that the Minister has destroyed her own case with two statements. One of her statements was that already the quantum of cannabis use has gone up, so that we are on a rising tide. The second point I noted from her remarks was that to legalise the use of cannabis would lead to a massive increase in its use. If that is so, what does that tell us? It tells us that there is a market and an appetite waiting to take more cannabis. Who is going to take it? The noble Baroness gave the answer by telling the House that one of the circumstances under which a pusher with drugs can be arrested is if that person is in the vicinity of a school.
	When one adds those together, one has a market of young people wanting to get to this drug and, as a sub-class of the vulnerable, are those referred to as having an incipient condition. Some linkage with mental instability is undoubtedly caused by or is related to cannabis.
	We come to the usual question, one that often arises in this type of debate. Looking into the crystal ball, what will be the likely effect of the policy now being proposed? Will it be, as the Minister and the learned committee have suggested, that there will be no serious increase, or will it be as described by a social worker who wrote to me from Dagenham? She said:
	"I write to you in distress that the drug cannabis is to be reclassified. If anything as a youth worker I think it should be raised to 'A' rather than dropped. I have watched young people changed very much for the worse because of this drug. Reclassifying cannabis will send out a clear message that the use of cannabis is OK. They are already confused enough . . . Please protect our young people in society".
	Whose view do you accept? What view do you take? I go for the youth worker. What he says is very sensible.
	The only surprise in the debate is the timidity of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I greatly respect him and his aggression, which can be displayed to great force on some occasions, but the amendment merely states that,
	"this House notes that the order may lead to increased use of cannabis with risks to the health of young people".
	It does not deplore the order aggressively; it merely notes it in a rather calm way.
	Those who are vulnerable are the young of our country. If Lady Macbeth had seen that draft she might have said to the noble Lord, "Infirm of purpose? Give me the daggers". The dagger we want is one with which to strike down the order. I urge your Lordships to reject it—if we can do so—or, if not, to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, it has been a heated debate in which strong views have been expressed. I shall speak briefly in support of the amendment.
	Like many of your Lordships, I have been inundated with personal letters from individuals and faxes from organisations. There may or may not be some exaggeration in the claims made, but at the very least they should make one think hard about whether reclassification would not send out the wrong signals.
	I am sure that all noble Lords would, like me, wish to support any move that would genuinely reduce the all too profitable role of drugs barons in this country. However, the results where some form of declassification or reclassification of drugs has taken place elsewhere do not look encouraging. I shall not go over the Dutch experience or, indeed, the Lambeth experience, other than to say that quite clearly there was open dealing there during the period of the experiment. However, I hear that there are differing views on that.
	The potential medical ill effects of cannabis have come through very clearly indeed, particularly in regard to mental illness, which seems to occur far too often. Cannabis may not be 20 per cent stronger than it was in the 1960s, but it is certainly stronger today. Apparently it stays longer in the brain, with young boys five times more likely to be users. Education potential is at risk, with concentration and attention spans affected and the possibility of permanent damage caused to brain cells.
	There is apparently, too, a great concern that cannabis use is a factor in road accidents—a point well put by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate. The figures that I have read show that some 10 per cent of those responsible for fatal accidents tested positive for cannabis, and 80 per cent of those did not have an alcohol content above the limit.
	It would appear that an increasing number of young children believe that cannabis has been legalised, but by no means do adults wish to vote in favour of decriminalising cannabis.
	My two greatest concerns relate to addiction and those who are likely to be affected by it. It is very clear that cannabis can, and clearly does—if only sometimes—lead people into harder drugs. Adolescent users are apparently much more likely to use cocaine than those who never smoked cannabis and apparently almost 100 per cent of heroin addicts started on cannabis.
	One then has to ask oneself who is the group most likely to become addicted. I suggest that the most vulnerable group would be those youngsters from disadvantaged and dysfunctional families—that is, the very group least likely to get the appropriate help and support from within their own families, and in which undesirable peer pressure has to be obeyed more often than not.
	As I know all too well from my years in the London juvenile courts, this pattern is all too familiar. Truancy is the first step, with the need for funds to feed the drug habit leading inevitably to crime—thus spiralling down the cycle of deprivation continues.
	I hope the Minister will think again and, at the very least, agree to the delay suggested. I agree that it is a pretty timid step; nevertheless, it would be a way of showing the acceptance of the concern that is expressed by Members of this House.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. Having sat through the entire debate and listened to all the contributions, I think that the controversial nature of the contributions that have been made and the divided opinions that we have heard in your Lordships' House this evening should at least give us all pause for thought. Timid though the amendment may be, I think it is the right one, because at least it gives us the chance to reconsider before taking what I regard as a pretty momentous step.
	In introducing the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said—this remark has been quoted by several of my noble friends on the Cross Benches—that, mercifully, most cannabis users do not move on. On Friday last, I was in Liverpool, in part of the area I represented at one level or another for some 25 years. Earlier this year, in that same neighbourhood, I attended the funeral of a young man in his early twenties who had died of a heroin overdose. His mother was at the meeting on Friday last, and I put the proposition to her that not everyone who takes cannabis ends up as a heroin user. She responded to me by saying that she had never met anyone who was using heroin who did not start on cannabis. That is the key to this issue.
	There is clearly a link between the use of drugs, and although it is true that alcohol and other factors must also be taken into account, it would be absurd to dispute that link and to move forward without any degree of consensus on these questions. The order before us will reclassify cannabis as a class C drug, putting it into the same category as sleeping tablets and anabolic steroids.
	The Home Office website states that reclassification of cannabis should help the Government to convey an effective and credible message—to young people in particular—about the dangers of misusing drugs. But contrary to that statement and to everything the Minister has said this evening, reclassification sends the message that cannabis is harmless and not addictive, and that it is okay to take it. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, said, it also cultivates the common belief that it already has been legalised.
	Following the Home Secretary's announcement last July that he intended to reclassify cannabis, Life Education Centres performed a survey among pupils. Some 86 per cent of primary school children thought that cannabis was now legal, and 79 per cent thought it was safe.
	The Government claim that reclassification is based on the medical evidence. However, the most recent evidence was not, and could not have been, taken into account when they came to this conclusion. The advice to reclassify cannabis was based on a report in 2001 by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. That report was commissioned by the Home Office.
	The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs does not have a balanced membership, and only a few scientists are among its members. There are around 32 members of the ACMD. Thirteen are leading members of pro-liberalisation organisations. It does not have a single member from any organisation opposed to the liberalisation of drugs, so no one can argue that this was a balanced committee taking all the evidence into account.
	The ACMD reported in 2001, recommending reclassification. However, since then, significant new evidence has emerged linking cannabis with serious mental illness. That point was made very powerfully tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who has so much experience as a former Home Secretary. The majority of psychiatrists now accept a link between cannabis and serious mental illness. Two years ago, that was not the case.
	I give a brief summary of the new evidence. Schizophrenia, psychotic symptoms, depression and anxiety are strongly associated with cannabis abuse. Recent research confirms that cannabis can trigger psychosis even in those with no previous disposition to mental illness. The earlier cannabis use begins, the greater the risks. Eighteen year-olds who have used cannabis 50 times have a nearly seven-fold increased risk of developing psychosis over the next 15 years. Teenagers who use cannabis by age 15 have more than a four-fold increased risk of developing schizophrenia symptoms by the age of 26. Early cannabis use by the age of 15 increases the risk of schizophrenia compared to later cannabis use by the age of 18. Furthermore, a recently published study examined patients with recent onset of psychosis. It was found that patients with recent onset are twice as likely to have used cannabis compared with a population without psychosis. While alcohol consumption and consumption of illicit drugs other than cannabis was roughly equal in both groups, cannabis was used by 39 per cent of psychotic patients, but only 22 per cent of non-psychotic controls. That new evidence was produced by Professor Robin Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry.
	It is clear that cannabis, far more than other illicit drugs, including class A drugs, is associated with mental illness. To claim that cannabis should be only a class C drug is simply not compatible with the medical evidence. As the evidence was published only last year, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs could not take that into account when reconsidering reclassification in 2001.
	I know that it is late, but I should like to express my grave concern that the Home Secretary has so far refused to meet eminent scientists and leading researchers on cannabis, including four professors who want to present new research evidence to the Home Secretary. The scientists who have asked to meet the Home Secretary are Professor Robin Murray, Professor of Psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry in London; Professor John Henry, who was cited earlier, from Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine; Professor Heather Ashton, from the School of Neurosciences at the University of Newcastle; and Professor Colin Drummond, Professor of Addiction Psychiatry at St George's Hospital Medical School.
	Will the Minister tell us why the requests for such meetings have not been acceded to? Surely, before reclassifying, the Home Office should examine the likely effects of reclassification on society, public health, driving, and the health service. Reclassification is very likely to lead to increased cannabis use. If a drug is perceived to be harmless—and reclassification will send the message that it is harmless—its use will undoubtedly increase. It is downright irresponsible to proceed with these orders tonight. I would rarely speak so strongly on a subject in your Lordships' House, but I support the amendment laid before us and I hope that, when we divide, the House will support it.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall speak for just one minute—which may come as a relief to the Minister, who I know is anxious to wind up the debate.
	First, I too have received many letters from families throughout the country who speak with first-hand experience of the damage done to their children and other members of their families. Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, is a highly respected and esteemed Member of this place. She is a foremost authority on brain research in this country, working in many of our main universities. When a lady of that calibre tells us that cannabis is harmful and dangerous and that the order should not be supported, I believe that we should listen to her.
	Thirdly, I refer to the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, who lives among a community where this is a very real issue and speaks with first-hand experience. Her speech was extremely moving.
	I should also like to support Kate Hoey. The Minister said that one reason for reclassification was to put an end to confusion. However, the confusion was caused by the Home Secretary himself who initiated pilot schemes in some areas, including London. Kate Hoey, who lives in one of those pilot areas, has talked of the deep distress being experienced by that community.
	Those are powerful advocates for saying that the Government should think seriously about withdrawing the amendment. I support my noble friend Lord Hodgson this evening, but I and so many other Members of this House have not agreed to vote against the order.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I will not make the long speech that I prepared earlier. However, I have a new point that I should like to raise with my noble friend the Minister. She said that the Government do not accept that a high level of cannabis use is inevitable. The Government argue that they want to have an impact on usage through advertising and education. May I suggest that they, and perhaps noble Lords too, should have a look at the Internet? They could go to the Google search engine and type in "cannabis". I think they will be amazed to see there that 730,000 websites deal with cannabis. The first of the websites, "cannabis.com", tells you everything you need to know about cannabis: how you can get hold of it; what is in their shop; what is in their chatroom; instructions on how to grow cannabis; information about all the different types of cannabis available; on and on it goes. It ends up by giving the price per gram or price per ounce, available through the post, changed on a monthly basis according to the market. That is the first of 730,000 such websites.
	Going through the websites at random, you will see that the vast majority of them are in the same business. They are the dealers working on an international basis. It is available there through the post. I ask the Minister what the Government are doing about that. Are any attempts being made on an international basis, as with paedophiles, to tackle not only the sale and promotion of cannabis but access to information through the Internet on how to purchase crack cocaine and heroin? Those drugs figure similarly on other websites.
	Young people widely use both mobile telephones and the Internet. Those are the ways in which life is changing so quickly for them. They can be approached in a quite different way from anything that we have seen previously. I should like to know, as this has not been mentioned either in the debate in the other place or here, what the Government and the police intend to do about that.

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, we have heard an awful lot about an awful lot of experts in the course of this debate. I am not an expert on drugs. However, I have been chairman of a leading provider of day care for drug addicts in the City of Westminster for 10 years, chairman of the Addiction Recovery Foundation for 16 years, vice-chairman of the Parliamentary Group on Drug Misuse for 12 years, and I have probably taken rather more drugs than most of the other Members of your Lordships' House. So I am beginning to learn a little bit.
	I have heard from all sides of the House confusion and from all sides of the House concern. Maybe we should try to step back for a minute and look to see if those two things come together. I have not heard one noble Lord on either side of this argument or any side of the House say that taking drugs is a good thing. From all sides of the House, noble Lord after noble Lord has risen and given us personal anecdote and expert view or general view about the dangers of drugs and in particular the danger of cannabis. All those noble Lords are entirely correct. Cannabis is a deeply undesirable drug. It is addictive. It is harmful. It causes problems to physical health. It causes all the problems described by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and many other noble Lords. However, in the general scheme of things, it is not half as dangerous as a lot of other things in our society. So we need to find a bit of balance there. However, everyone thinks that it is dangerous. Everyone would like to find a solution to the problem.
	The other sentiment that we have heard on all sides of the House is that if we liberalise, legalise or somehow reduce the classification it will lead to a massive increase. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said that we should not go down this route unless there was proof that liberalisation does not lead to an increase in use. There is a certain amount of logic in what the noble Lady was saying, and of course that proof does not exist. However, I will tell your Lordships what proof does exist. Under the current regime, whether we reclassify or whether we do not, we will undoubtedly see an increase in use, next week and the week after, and the year after, as we have year on year for the past 30 years as we have tightened the rules and regulations and laws and increased the sentences and deployed more police and spent more money on the courts. That is costing us between £12 billion and £18 billion a year. That is the price of having our drugs policy centred around the Misuse of Drugs Act. We should bear that in mind.
	Noble Lord after noble Lord has talked about the message that we shall send out today if we lower the classification, or if we maintain it, or if we do anything else with it. My noble friend Lord Bell knows an awful lot about sending out messages—much more than I do—but I do know one thing: not one single person under the age of 20, certainly not your 10 or 12 year-old in Glasgow, will give a brass farthing whether a drug is classed as B, C, D or Z. Indeed, they will not know or care.
	My noble friend Lady Blatch rightly talked about Brixton and what had happened there with the experiments that the Home Secretary conducted. I lived in Brixton before that. Brixton has been full to the gunnels with drug dealers for 15 years. The police have walked up one pavement and the dealers have walked down the other. This reclassification will not make a blind bit of difference to that, and anyone who thinks that it will is living in Cloud-cuckoo-land. That is not the way the world works. As virtually every single speaker has said, the reality is that drugs, whether cannabis or heroin, constitute a very serious health problem, although heroin is clearly a great deal more serious than cannabis. However, cannabis constitutes a health problem. The way you deal with health problems is with healthcare, not through the criminal justice system, because that does not work. You can keep the classification at class B or at class C, or you can make it class Z, it will not make a blind bit of difference.
	The order before us this evening is a complete and utter irrelevance. I suspect what happened was that the Home Secretary wanted to move in the right direction he was advised to move in, which was to try to get out of this criminal justice nightmare in which we currently live, but that the weight that descended on the back of his neck from his own Back-Benchers and, indeed, from Members of my own party, made him chicken out, so while lowering the classification with one hand he raises the penalties with another, which is a completely pointless act if ever I heard of one, but that is where we have got to.
	As someone who has been involved in this subject and, I believe, spoken in every debate in this House concerning drugs in the 15 or 16 years I have been privileged to be a Member of your Lordships' House, I normally come in with a vague idea of what I shall do, what I shall say and how I shall vote. However, I came into this debate this evening with a blank piece of paper—luckily I have not written too much on it—without the slightest idea of what the order would achieve. Having listened very, very carefully and made masses and masses of notes, I am now completely convinced that I still do not have a clue what it will achieve, except that I am pretty certain that it will achieve absolutely nothing.
	But what I have heard from all quarters of the House—which is very unusual in your Lordships' House on a difficult issue such as this—is that the House too is completely confused and was not swayed by the noble Baroness's very careful and, as always, clearly put argument. I understood her argument but it did not sway me. It did not convince me that the order was anything except completely pointless.
	I listened very carefully to the amendment of my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench. He tried to mitigate a shambles with a minor shambles. We shall end up with an even bigger shambles. The best solution this evening would be for the Minister to do what wonderful, clever and talented noble Lords and Ministers do on occasion and say, "I think that we have got this wrong. I should like to take it away and think again".
	Your Lordships have the right, the power and the privilege to ask the Government to think again. We all want to achieve the same thing—reduction in drug use and the protection of young people. Everyone on all sides of the House is agreed on that but not one single speaker knows exactly how we should achieve it. I do not think that the Minister convinced us that she knows either. I for one would be much happier if I did not have to vote one way or the other, and if the Government very sensibly took the measure away.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I regret to tell the noble Lord that I do not think that I shall be able to fulfil his request.
	This has been a really extraordinary debate. In many ways, it shows the utility of your Lordships' House. It has been wide-ranging, impassioned and, almost without exception, extraordinarily well informed. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is right when he says that we are all of one mind. We all agree that drugs are pernicious. We would all like to see them expunged and the young people in particular of our country released from their grip. Many people around the House have expressed different views on how we do that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, says that the effort that the Government are making is completely and utterly irrelevant, and that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has chickened out. I want to say how wholeheartedly I disagree on that. The order is not irrelevant. One had only to listen to the pain that was obvious in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and the passion of my noble friend Lady Howells to know that it was not irrelevant, but extraordinarily important.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, says that the Government are muddled, and that we are pointing in two directions. We are not. This is not a simple issue on which one can grasp from the air a simple solution and say, "That is it". If it were, we would have grasped that solution long before now. The Government are trying to do quite a difficult, brave and important thing. We acknowledge that cannabis is a harmful drug. Nothing that I said in opening the debate detracted from that. A number of noble Lords seemed to suggest that I had in some way equivocated. I did not. It is a drug that can have detrimental effects, particularly on those who have a vulnerability in relation to mental illness. It is not a drug that we believe should be legalised.
	However, we have to face the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves as a community. Cannabis is widely used. There is a challenge for us in terms of what we do to release young people from that vice, as it is they in the main who are entrapped by it. There is an old adage that one can hate the sin but love the sinner. We seek to differentiate between the way in which we will treat the user of cannabis and its purveyor, provider or supplier. That is why we remain rigid in our opposition to those who sell the drugs, abuse our young people and derive profit from it. We are not ashamed to say that we will not move one jot in terms of the 14 years that should follow such people.
	That does not make us inconsistent. In the steps that we are taking in the Criminal Justice Bill and other Bills that we have been privileged to discuss in this House, we seek to make a very clear distinction by the way in which we treat those who abuse drugs, so that treatment is available. That is a very important point.
	I shall try, as briefly and quickly as I can, to deal with some points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has been accused of being timid. I saw no timidity in his discourse. He referred to Professor Edwards as a member of the advisory council—of course, he is a former member—and to the ever-increasing body of research. That research has been taken into account. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, mentioned the increase in potency and the higher strength cannabis, which has in fact been on the market since the 1990s. Those issues did prey on our minds and we considered them well.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, gave us qualified support, because she accuses the Government of timidity. She said that we should go further and, in effect, legalise cannabis. My response is: "No. We think that we have gone far enough".
	The noble Baroness asked why there is a presumption for arrest. There is not. The presumption is against arrest. It is expected that in most cases a warning will be sufficient, together with confiscation of the drug. However, there are certain circumstances where arrest will be appropriate, as I outlined in my opening remarks. The increase in penalties for trafficking maintains our position in relation to the 14-year sentence.
	I should respond next to the speech of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. She asked about those who need cannabis for medicinal purposes. My right honourable friend has made clear that he is willing to amend the misuse of drugs legislation as necessary to allow the prescribing of a cannabis-based medicine as a form of pain relief. The Home Office granted a licence to GW Pharmaceuticals, who have conducted trials and have developed a cannabis-based medicine designed to relieve chronic nerve pain. The company is seeking marketing approval for the product from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. That is a process through which all new medicines have to go in order to protect public health. The Multiple Sclerosis Society supports that approach. Therefore, it is a matter that we are trying to address.
	One of the most powerful speeches was made by my noble friend Baroness Howells. I understand each and every issue that she raised. However, if I may respectfully say so, many of her points were answered in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale. My noble friend raised some difficult issues and I shall answer her questions directly. She asked if cannabis is harmless. We do not say that it is. She then asked whether downgrading cannabis stops people from taking harder drugs. We have heard an answer to that. In response to the question whether relaxing the law on cannabis would free police to deal with more drugs, I draw my noble friend's attention to the crumbs of comfort that have been drawn from the Lambeth experiment. There has been a 10 per cent increase in arrests for class A drugs-dealing. In the 11 months to May 2002, 224 arrests were made, compared to 204 in the 12 months to June 2001. That was a result of greater police activity against dealers. In a survey of the people of Lambeth, 83 per cent of residents supported the scheme. Some supported it on condition that the police spend more time on serious crimes. We can therefore conclude from the surveys that they believed that the scheme was right.
	However, I of course acknowledge my noble friend's remarks about the mothers of boys. I also acknowledge, as was indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Massam, that I have a personal reason for empathising with those who have those concerns.
	The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, mentioned the Connexions leaflet. I should make it clear that its contents were not approved by the Government and, as the noble Lord said, the leaflets have been withdrawn. However, there is a job for us to do in educating our young people and giving them the skills and the knowledge they need to make informed choices. That is a campaign in which we intend to engage with vigour. Children need to hear that drugs are dangerous. They may vary in their danger, but none of them is conducive to good health. As many people have said, we need to look at the health effects. Cannabis has addictive properties. They are not as high as class A. Cannabis does not kill through overdose; it does not cause social and personal safety problems to the same extent; but we do not for a moment suggest that the effects are not aberrant, because they are.
	As a number of noble Lords have said, the evidence about schizophrenia is inconclusive. The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, says that the Government have been too timorous and that we should go further. I hope that the answers I have given to other noble Lords he will take as answers to his queries.
	We are including all cannabis in the reclassification, including class C. It was a joy but also a pain to hear the pithy comments of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, whom I always enjoy, even when the barbs are directed towards me. I say to the noble Lord that the reclassification to class C is not a mistake. It enables us to do something which could be creative in responding to the needs many have called for. I welcome and thank my noble friend Lord Rea for his support drawn from his experience as a GP. That is valuable evidence indeed.
	In answer to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, the oil will be included in the reclassification as C. The medical evidence indicates that that is an appropriate move. I of course hear what my noble friend Lord Mackenzie said about cannabis and driving. Everything that we do to limit the use of cannabis will, we hope, impinge on those issues and scientists are seeking to develop scientific means of establishing whether a person is impaired. Cannabis stays in the bloodstream for as long as 28 days—long after it ceases to impair performance.
	Other organisations have supported what the Government have tried to do. They include the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs; the Association of Chief Police Officers; the Metropolitan Police Service; Turning Point; AdAction; DrugScope; the Home Affairs Select Committee in its report of 2002; the Police Federation; and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. None of them is irresponsible. All of them are committed to looking at the problem and trying to see whether they can help.
	We have come on a long and tortuous journey. It has been difficult, but we believe that we have reached an honourable and good compromise. There is much for us to do. We will of course rely on those of good will to help us. We can, at the same time, move the broader drugs agenda squarely on to the menace of class A drugs. These are the drugs which can kill; which can insidiously destroy entire communities. We are now starting to make an impact in our strategy to reduce class A drug misuse and the effects of that.
	The Government are investing unprecedented levels of funds into drug treatment, education and enforcing the law. On education, we are targeting action under the Positive Futures programme to prevent the most vulnerable young people from getting involved in drugs. We are using sport and art to develop their skills to help themselves resist drugs and re-enter education and training. Positive Futures initiatives have been set up in 104 areas and 16,000 vulnerable young people are already receiving support under the scheme.
	Connexions partnerships aim to provide teenagers with access to the support they need to take part effectively in learning and make a successful transition to adulthood. In some cases, Connexions will identify and refer young people with drug problems to specialist support. There are no easy solutions, but many of us have seen what young people can achieve and the wonders that they can perform when we help them out of the mire into which drugs have taken them. This Government believe that they have the right strategy, based on a realistic approach, to make a real and sustained impact on the drugs problem and to deliver substantial improvements. I invite your Lordships to endorse what the Government are trying to do—and trying to do bravely and correctly.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will it now mean that injecting cannabis is a class C situation? I believe that there should be no compromise with dirty needles and the risk of HIV and hepatitis.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said, cannabinol—it is late at night; having sat on this Bench for a long time, I cannot even say the word—cannabis oil, if I may use a different form of the word, is included in the reclassification of class C drugs. All forms of cannabis will now fall within the class C classification.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, the hour is late and so I shall be very brief. I am extremely grateful to Members from all sides of the House who have spoken in support of my amendment. I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Carnegy and the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, thought that I was being lily-livered. Whether she supported me or not, it was a privilege to listen to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids. Due to the sincerity with which she spoke, whether she was for or against me, I would have been proud to hear that speech. She spoke sincerely about petty crime, family break-up and mental illness and made a terrific speech.
	I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. Those who were less supportive included, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale. However, when they began to speak, I found that much of what they said was in tune with my thinking—that is, the noble Baroness referred to the muddle over the class C classification and whether we would have a class D, and she mentioned consistency by the police. The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, used a great phrase, referring to the "legal acrobatics" of the Home Secretary, which is exactly what my amendment addresses.
	However, the Minister rounded off her remarks by saying that the Government have been on a tortuous journey. You can say that again! They are trying to be all things to all men. The order sends a mixed message leading to a muddle. It may not seem to be a muddle from a desk in Whitehall, but the noble Baroness has only to listen to the messages from around the House tonight to know that the issue is a muddle out there in the country where it really matters.
	Mine is not a fatal amendment, as it is termed, but it will send a clear signal to the Government that your Lordships are concerned about the dangers of the policy that the Government are following. Following on from the remarks of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, I do not believe that the noble Baroness will withdraw the order and think again—she shakes her head as I look at her. Therefore, I intend to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 61.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Whether the original Motion, as amended, shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 37.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion, as amended, agreed to accordingly.

Ragwort Control Bill

Report received.
	Clause 1 [Control of ragwort]:

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 5, leave out "prevent the spread of" and insert "reduce the risk of horses dying from eating"

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I expected a certain exodus at this stage. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, if she has been caused anxiety by my amendment. There is undoubtedly a problem of horses suffering and dying after eating ragwort, but the scale of the problem is very unclear.
	At Second Reading, evidence to support the contention was produced in a very muddled and inadequate way. As reported in Hansard at cols. 1239–40, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, underlined the need for proper scientific evidence to support legislation. That need was strongly affirmed by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, a consortium of nature conservancy bodies of great expertise. We do not believe that that evidence has been brought forward.
	Supporters of the Bill have made some sweeping assertions, unsubstantiated and unreconciled, over the alleged spread of ragwort and the number of horse deaths. There is no mention of mortality trends. One would have expected comparative figures for several years to establish an increasing risk of ragwort poisoning, if that is indeed the case. Uncertainty about the distance that seed can travel—from several miles to 14 metres depending on whom we believe—and about the distribution of ragwort itself, conflicts with the evidence of the New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora published as recently as last year.
	A number of questions were raised and not effectively answered at Second Reading. There is a confusing and not very convincing picture of a problem, although clearly there is a problem. There is a real danger of overlooking the importance and the value of ragwort as a significant plant in the food chain, supporting very large numbers of insects including the beautiful and none too common cinnabar moth, with its wonderful orange and black football sock caterpillars that are so distinctive and characteristic. The answer to the problem lies in good pasture management and a careful scrutiny of forage by suppliers and by horse owners who buy it in, because ragwort in forages is even more poisonous than ragwort on the ground. Suppliers of forage should guarantee that their product is ragwort free. It is certainly incumbent on those who sell forage to horse owners to take this provision very seriously indeed.
	Prevention of the problem is better than any kind of possible cure. There are three possible cures—through culture, chemicals or biological control. Of those, biological control is much the most desirable from the ecological point of view. In any case, the objective must be, as my amendment tries to make clear, to reduce the risk of horses dying from eating ragwort, rather than to reduce substantially the amount of ragwort, which plays such an important part in sustaining biodiversity. We should be highly selective in any method of control, concentrating on pasture, preferably by alternating grazing by horses with grazing by sheep. The National Trust, which cares a great deal about good pasture management and encourages its tenant farmers to practise it, has not been aware of a ragwort problem.
	An important point needs to be made about amenity land and highway and railway verges, because those are places where ragwort is frequently found and is alleged to be increasing in quantity. There is a real risk of overkill control by spraying with an indiscriminate broad-leaved herbicide, which could seriously damage and diminish the range of broad-leaved plants, not only ragwort. Unfortunately, there is no specific herbicide which tackles just ragwort.
	My fear is that the Bill, as it stands and simple as it is, conceivably might encourage cowboy sprayers to consider that they have carte blanche to go out and kill ragwort, and a great deal of other valuable material at the same time. It is in those places—that is, amenity land, roadside and railway verges, cuttings, and so forth—that ragwort should be left alone as a valuable food source. In the code of practice, apropos railway land, there is a reference to,
	"danger to the travelling public"
	in passing trains, which is quite preposterous.
	I also must admit that the revised code of practice has many virtues; not least, its emphasis on the need to prevent the problem rather than to treat and control it and its acknowledgement of the very great care that is needed for sites of special scientific interest, in particular. There is also the need to consult widely, especially with English Nature, before any control of ragwort is attempted on such sites, although, of course, such sites—SSSIs—make up a very small proportion of the total landscape that we are considering.
	There are safe, good and careful safeguards written into the code about any use of chemicals. A well made point in the regulatory impact assessment in paragraph 27 states that,
	"a code with statutory backing should also reduce pressure on the Government to take a tougher regulatory stance in relation to the control of ragwort. Increasing enforcement activity under the Weeds Act to deal with the proliferation of ragwort would be more burdensome and costly to Government and to other statutory bodies than the introduction of this legislation".
	I accept that the Bill may be the lesser evil in the sense that it is a small step in the direction of meeting a problem that exists for horse owners but also, particularly in the code of practice, recognises the ecological importance of ragwort and the nature conservancy need to be very careful in any control measures that are undertaken.
	I probably should say that the British Horse Society, which has made the running in producing the Bill, may not be entirely aware of the considerable importance of ragwort in terms of nature conservancy and biodiversity. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says in response. Meanwhile, I beg to move.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe that I am right in thinking that the right reverend Prelate will be retiring in a few weeks' time. If I am right, perhaps I may take this opportunity to wish him a very long, happy and ragwort-free retirement.
	Last weekend, I stayed in a friend's house near Newmarket. She has about 15 horses, mostly eventers. She is assiduous in getting rid of any ragwort growing on her land. Yet, every year, back it comes. Of course, there is ragwort growing on neighbouring land on set aside, and on the sides of roads. In due course, when seeds land on my friend's land, the merry-go-round will start again.
	I am really conscious of an increase of ragwort on the sides of roads. I would submit to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that gypsy horses and ponies do graze in such places. I have read the eloquent speech made by my noble friend Lord Brooke at Second Reading very carefully. Of course, I see his point of view and I understand some of his worries. However, I have learnt that the cinnabar moth also loves to eat and lay its eggs on groundsel. Therefore, I cannot help feeling that, like the cinnabar moth, the 86 different creatures which eat ragwort already have alternatives up their sleeves, or wherever.
	Curiously, hardly any mention was made at Second Reading about the very real danger to humans who, unless they wear gloves when touching ragwort, can develop liver sickness resulting in death. I hope that my noble friend Lord Rotherwick's pal by the name of Cookie wore gloves and is in the pink of good health at present.
	I could not help but think that perhaps there is a parallel between ragwort and stinging nettles. Both are beloved by butterflies, but while a few are tolerated, who would want stinging nettles all over their garden? It may be that a code of practice will be able to prevent the spread of ragwort while at the same time recognising that this beastly plant, to some degree, is here to stay.
	I have to say that, with the best will in the world, I believe it is impossible to get rid of ragwort. I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on bringing forward this timely Bill. Clause 1 is reasonable and realistic, and I hope that the Bill is passed without alteration. If any changes are made, the measure will fall because there is no time left to change it.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, ragwort is already classified as a noxious weed and Clause 1 introduces only one new element; namely, that there should be a code of practice to provide guidance on how to prevent the spread of ragwort. Of course the code does not exist because the Bill has not yet been passed.
	I want to stress the words, "prevent the spread of" ragwort. That is a fairly modest aim. However useful the code of practice may be, it is hardly conceivable that either ragwort or the cinnabar moth will vanish from the countryside. I have to say, since we are dealing with the amendment of the right reverend Prelate, that I am not attracted to his proposed wording. It might imply that the code of practice should go beyond the control of ragwort itself to, for example, guidance on the inspection of horses' feed or even veterinary advice. It would widen the entire field which might be covered by the code of practice. That could give rise to many difficulties.
	I hope that the Bill will go forward in the form in which it has been presented to the House.

Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I declare an interest in that we have a small number of Welsh black cattle. While with great regret I must oppose the amendment of the right reverend Prelate, I do so because of its over-concentration on the interests of horses. In our view, and in the view of our vet who has attended the corpses of some of our cattle, ragwort is a killer for cattle.
	If noble Lords visit the Library of your Lordships' House, they can consult that inestimable work, Black's Veterinary Dictionary, now in its 20th edition. On page 432 it states that ragwort poisoning,
	"causes losses among cattle and sheep in Great Britain, Canada and New Zealand"—
	and goes on to refer to South Africa. Ragwort poisoning causes,
	"cirrhosis of the liver, inflammation of the fourth stomach, and other lesions".
	I hope that, at this hour, noble Lords will not ask me to go further into the damage done to various parts of the anatomy of cattle. However, it is clear that ragwort is a serious cause of disease, mainly via the liver, for many other forms of livestock.
	Because the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate is limited to horses, I would urge noble Lords not to accept it.

Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have not intervened in the debates on this Bill because I had considered it to be a relatively minor piece of legislation which would go through the House without amendment. All noble Lords understand that any amendment agreed today would ensure that the measure would not reach the statute book.
	The right reverend Prelate is correct to identify ragwort as one of the major hazards of the horse world. Ragwort, in particular when it is mixed in with hay, can be fatal in many instances. That is even more the case when the weed has wilted; it seems then to become extremely toxic to animals. I daresay that the noble Lord, Lord Neill, understands that it is probably the hay eaten by his cattle that contains ragwort in its toxic form.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is not strictly so. Ragwort is absolutely poisonous to horses, cattle and humans when it is green, but in that form it tastes disgusting to animals, so they do not eat it unless it is the same height as the grass on which they are cropping. Animals eat it with pleasure only when it reaches the hay stage. I hope that my noble friend will excuse me for butting in.

Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I think that my noble friend has reinforced what I was saying. It is when ragwort is mixed in with hay that animals seem to eat it with some pleasure, and that is when in many instances it becomes fatal. Very often sheep can graze ragwort with impunity and, over a period of time, eradicate it from various fields.
	As my noble friend Lady Trumpington said, it is set aside and the recent farming practices that have seen the spread of this rather dangerous weed.
	The Bill sets out that a code of practice may be introduced to stop the spread of ragwort. That is the only purpose of this small Bill. But the BHS has written to me to say that it has no intention to press for the eradication of ragwort but supports this attempt to see it controlled. So any idea that the Bill seeks to eradicate ragwort is entirely wrong.
	I urge the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who has also tabled an amendment, not to press their amendments to a Division at this rather late stage in the Bill's passage through Parliament. It provides a useful measure which can go some way towards alleviating a problem that the BHS and many horse owners recognise as being fairly devastating for the horse population and will help ensure that it is not exacerbated.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate made some important points in regard to biodiversity and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply on that issue. However, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will not press his amendment. Like other noble Lords, I believe that there is some point in the Bill going through, although I wonder whether the suggestion I made in Committee about forage being certified as ragwort free might be more vigorously pursued.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, made a fair point—horses do indeed graze verges in some circumstances—but, as she went on to say, they do not choose to eat the ragwort when it is growing at that height.
	As noble Lords have mentioned, the other key solution lies in good pasture management. Beyond publishing the code, the Government should give serious thought to that aspect when they come to consider reforming agri-environment schemes as areas become less stocked. Such approaches will make a difference.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing forward the amendment but I, too, hope that he will not press it. I understand why he has introduced it. The death of horses and cattle is very unpleasant and we all wish to see the number of deaths reduced as far as possible.
	As for parliamentary timing, I understand that if any amendment is pressed today the Bill will not proceed further. I believe that all noble Lords speaking to the Bill want it to get through but, to a certain extent, that will depend on the code. Having listened carefully and read in Hansard the report of the previous occasion when my noble friend Lord Rotherwick guided the Bill through on behalf of our Front Bench, I understand that the code cannot come into being until this has been agreed.
	Having heard what has been said—I believe we are all on the same wavelength, if I may use that bad phraseology—perhaps I may add one further comment. Having kept horses and ponies—and scrubby ones at that—on many occasions over the years, I believe that, to a certain extent, it is up to those of us who have cattle and horses to do our best to ensure that ragwort is not found within the eating areas of our animals. I know that that is more difficult in the bigger public domain than in small paddocks.
	As to the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, I tremble in my boots at the thought of the regulation involved in searching for ragwort in hay bales. There are genuine concerns but I hope that the code will overcome those expressed in the House today.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, I support my noble friend's Bill. It is a very pretty little Bill and it is not very far reaching. It does not say that it will eradicate all ragwort or all cinnabar moths or any other insects. I think the ragwort fairy in the fairy book is very pretty and attractive. There will still be ragwort, but not near horses. This is a very modest little Bill, so I hope that the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will not press their amendments.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the House knows, the Government strongly support this Bill and would not wish to see an amendment. However, it is important to stress to the right reverend Prelate and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who will speak shortly, that the Bill does not envisage the eradication of ragwort, as the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, has just indicated. It is about the control of the spread of ragwort and about putting the responsibility on landowners and land managers to ensure that it does not spread.
	The right reverend Prelate's amendment would effectively restrict the effect to where horses were involved. As the noble Lord, Lord Neill, said, this is a problem not only for horses: other livestock are involved. It would also mean that the responsibility was shifted away from the landowners on to the horse owners. Although I accept the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that horse owners have some responsibility in this area, responsibility for the limitation of ragwort must rest with the landowners or the land managers. That is what the Bill states at present and what the code of practice will turn into a real power and responsibility.
	I therefore hope that the right reverend Prelate will not pursue his amendment. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, I doubt whether this is the right reverend Prelate's last intervention in this Chamber. Nevertheless, I join her in my respect for his interventions in these rural debates and offer him best wishes for his retirement.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I hope that what I am about to say will help the right reverend Prelate. Ragwort is the silent killer. Ragwort poisoning kills hundreds of horses every year, often with little or no warning, and there is no known cure. It is vital, therefore, that farmers and landowners stay vigilant and take immediate action against this lethal plant.
	At least 500 horses a year die from the natural born killer. Dr Derek Knottenbelt of the equine division of the University of Liverpool thinks the figure is much higher.
	Cattle are about halfway between horses and sheep in terms of the effects of ragwort poisoning. They need protecting too. Humans may be affected through cows' milk and bees' honey. The World Health Organisation has reported on this.
	I have been concerned that some very experienced country Members of your Lordships' House have been picking ragwort with bare hands, not wearing protective gloves. Ragwort is toxic: the toxins in ragwort are alkaloids, which cause huge liver damage by attacking the DNA. Ragwort poisoning is an end-stage liver disease. Nothing can be done to save horses and other animals once it reaches 75 per cent, and nobody knows when this level is reached.
	This Bill, which needs protecting tonight, will help to educate many people throughout the country about the devastation which ragwort poisoning can cause, especially to horse owners. The Bill will not eradicate ragwort; it aims to control it.
	I thank all noble Lords who have supported the Bill this evening. I hope that the right reverend Prelate, for whom I have great respect, will not insist on his amendment.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I thank those who have taken part in this brief debate. I certainly do not want to prolong matters at this late hour.
	I had hoped to hear rather more robust support for the nature conservancy cause, particularly from the Minister. I tabled the amendment because there is a great deal of unease about the possible consequences of the Bill—small and modest as it seems—in tipping the balance in favour of the eradication of ragwort, although the Minister said that was not the intention, and is probably not possible. There was a good deal of unease in nature conservancy circles when the Bill was published, and a sense that the importance of ragwort as an ecological or food plant had not really been recognised.
	I suspect that most noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have probably not read in full the draft code of practice, which I read this afternoon. I was personally reassured by it, and I hope that the Minister can confirm that the form in which it now exists—I know that it is only a draft—is the form in which it will be published, with proper safeguards from the point of view of nature conservancy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Leave out Clause 1.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, if the attendance of some noble Lords at this hour owes anything to alarms and excursions evinced by either the British Horse Society or the ILPH because of my own actions, I can only apologise to them. I understand that my notice of seeking to leave out Clause 1 was treated as a wrecking amendment by the British Horse Society, but I must say that the society did not get in touch with me to inquire my purpose. The amendment was agreed with the Minister as a device to enable us, in the remaining stages, to carry on with him the dialogue embarked on at Second Reading about the underlying principles of the code of practice, which lie at the heart of the legislation.
	We veterans of the Second Reading have been joined this evening by, among others, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, who in one of his final speeches in your Lordships' House shared a number of my concerns. I echo the words of my noble friend Lady Trumpington towards him at this moment in his career in your Lordships' House.
	I believed that I had made it clear on Second Reading—not once but three times—that I wished the Bill and horses well. As other noble Lords have said, since amendments of any sort carried at this time in the Session, whether wrecking or otherwise, would kill the Bill, I suggested that we proceed by way of dialogue rather than hostility or confrontation. We are doing that on Report rather than in Committee simply because of a request to me from the Front Benches of both sides that the Committee stage should be concluded undebated. With the right reverend Prelate in the Chamber, I hesitate to embark on theology, but the lack of vocal state of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on that day implied that a silent Committee stage was an example of divine providence.
	I make it clear now, beyond peradventure, so that any noble Lord who wants to leave now can do so, that I do not intend to seek to divide the House. I have three questions to ask, and one observation to make. I shall get the latter out of the way first. I attach no blame to the Minister and suppose that I am blaming Murphy's law, but two things went wrong with the support arrangements on the Bill.
	First, the department wrote on 24th October, a week after Second Reading, to the outside interested parties, including the Wildlife and Countryside Link, which in particular had provided briefing on Second Reading, telling it of the revised regulatory impact assessment, to which I shall refer henceforward as the RIA. The Minister referred to it on Second Reading. The communication with outside parties implied that it was enclosed with the letter. I cannot speak for others on the departmental mailing list, but a copy of the revised RIA was not enclosed to the link and, with the current postal difficulties, a copy was secured only by a personal visit to Defra on the eve of the Committee stage.
	Simultaneously, the revised RIA in the Library, which the Minister said that he had caused to be placed there on Second Reading, turned out in the event to be the original RIA. I pressed the Library on whether that was correct, and was told that it had arrived on 16th October, on the eve of Second Reading. I realise that the mistake may have occurred in the Library, but the other case suggests that the balance of probability lies elsewhere.
	As I say, I do not blame anyone for that series of events, but it has made it a little more difficult to scrutinise the Bill efficiently and, most importantly, timeously.
	My first question refers to the revised RIA. On Second Reading, I said that the link was anxious to see more detailed proof of the scale of the problem in terms of equine deaths through ragwort poisoning. The Minister referred in his speech on Second Reading to the RIA, or indeed the revised RIA, which increased the estimate of deaths by extrapolating them from a 4 per cent return to a survey by the British Equine Veterinary Association. I cannot help feeling that that may have been an advance in numbers from 4,000 in the original RIA to a new figure of 6,500, but on the slender basis of the 4 per cent return, that was done at the expense of credibility. I do not know whether any further essay is intended on the scale of the problem but would be interested to know. I repeat that I am not challenging the fact of poisoning itself.
	Secondly, I have as a result of Second Reading become aware of the draft code of practice. I am grateful for the opportunity afforded since then, not least through the right reverend Prelate, to be able to read it. I congratulate the department on its comprehensiveness. I am, however, conscious of the continuing anxiety of the Link about the dangers to non-target species from control by a non-ragwort-specific herbicide which I will refer to, for the purposes of this debate, by the ugly word ragworticide. I have noted the cautionary paragraphs in the draft code. I am thinking of paragraphs 144, 151, 153 and 158–160, winding up with table 3 on page 22. I am also conscious that, on Second Reading, the Minister indicated that he would revisit the draft code in the aftermath of the Second Reading debate.
	I am also conscious that the British Horse Society supports in writing the principle of the Government undertaking an environmental impact assessment in relation to the code. But I am not clear if the Government explicitly accept that need, or whether they feel that what they have already put into the code adequately reflects the potential impact of control through herbicides on non-target species and indeed what those non-target species affected by ragwort control would be.
	Finally, but at a lower order of importance, because truth presumably lies between the two extremes that I quoted at Second Reading, which the right reverend Prelate quoted again tonight, I wonder whether the Minister has anything to say about how far ragwort seed can travel. I calibrated the extremes which the right reverend Prelate quoted on Second Reading, at col. 1240 of the Official Report. I should be entirely content if it were easier for the Minister to write to me about that than speak to it tonight. However, the one price I would exact in exchange is for him to say tonight whether, in response to what my noble friend Lord Rotherwick said at Second Reading, and indeed I said myself, he intends to expand the references to pasture management, to which the right reverend Prelate also referred tonight. The principles of pasture management seem potentially the most effective methods of ragwort control of all and a rather more detailed examination of them in the code of practice would seem to me to be helpful.
	In conclusion, I hope that the Bill gets on the statute book. I congratulate all those whose efforts have gone into making that possible. I am delighted that the voice of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has returned.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, knows that I cannot accept his amendment. So I am very pleased that he is not going to press it. As the Bill must leave your Lordships' House intact, as we are running out of time, that is absolutely vital. However, I thank the noble Lord for giving us a chance of further debate even though it is very late. I thank everyone for staying at this late hour.
	I hope that ragwort-free hay can be organised in the code of practice. We have a duty of care to try to protect horses and other animals. I hope that the code of practice will help to educate all the people concerned and give information to those who need it. Ragwort is already in the Weeds Act 1959. Therefore, it is the code of practice that is so important for this Bill. The code of practice will have to be laid before Parliament and will give all sorts of groups of people the chance openly to debate the problems. If anything was to happen to this Bill, there would be many disappointed people who are trying their best to encourage good practice.
	We need more research into this dangerous weed. I congratulate Dr Knottenbelt of Liverpool University on his work and his enthusiasm in this matter, the British Horse Society on the part it has played in the Bill and the Government on their support. I also, of course, congratulate the mover of the Bill, the Member for Ryedale. I thank the Government for all their support and help on this matter and for the help that will be provided during the rest of the Bill's passage. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, before we conclude this debate I owe it to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, to make a number of points on behalf of the Government. Clearly, I support the Bill and I very much appreciate the fact that the noble Baroness has brought it forward.
	There are only three issues. First, I believe there have been some communications difficulties for which I can only apologise to the noble Lord and anyone else who suffered from the non-communication of the revised RIA. I am sorry if that led to some misunderstanding about the Bill. Secondly, the code of practice is still out for consultation which is why I could not give an utterly definitive reply to the right reverend Prelate. I have explained the structure of our approach, but clearly there are other aspects, including pasture management, which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, raised, which could perhaps do with some further attention. Certainly, views on that will be taken into account before we finalise the code of practice.
	Thirdly, regarding the basic issue of the vulnerability of horses and other livestock to ragwort, a straight extrapolation of the survey carried out by the equine vets may reveal only the extreme end of the problem. Nevertheless, the very detailed work that Liverpool University did, and to which the noble Baroness referred, indicates a very serious problem of ragwort poisoning in the equine population. As the noble Lord, Lord Neill, said, it goes beyond the equine population. It therefore behoves the Government and landowners to do something about the problem.
	There is also a biodiversity concern here. We hope that those who approached the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and others, about their concerns on this front are reassured that we do not seek the eradication of ragwort. Ragwort will continue to exist in our countryside, our fields and hedgerows. However, where it is most likely to be eaten by horses and livestock, there is an obligation on landowners to limit its spread. Therefore, the source of habitat and food for moths and other creatures that are dependent on ragwort—quite apart from the species to which the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, referred—will still exist. I believe that the biodiversity concerns have been exaggerated. Certainly, it is the intention behind the code of practice to ensure that those biodiversity concerns are met through the way in which we implement the powers in the Bill.
	I hope with that assurance—the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, raised one or two other matters on which I shall write to him—that the noble Lord will not press the amendment tonight and that the Bill will complete its passage through this House to the great relief of many horse owners and other owners of livestock.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is any research being done on the extent of the spread? A reply on that point would be helpful to my noble friend. That question has been asked in another place and in this House. If there is no such research, is it likely that some work will be done on the matter as that would be a huge help in controlling the future spread of ragwort?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, some university research is being conducted on that matter but I cannot say whether there is a project directed specifically at the spread of ragwort. Therefore, I cannot reply to that point. I shall try to cover it in correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I want to press again the question of control by chemicals, and safeguards that need to be built into the code of practice about avoiding non-target species that could suffer if that form of control were ever used. Can some stronger safeguards be built into the code? Chemical control of ragwort needs to be highly specific. That is difficult, granted the nature of herbicides to be used. If there were more safeguards along those lines, we would feel reassured.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, in Yorkshire two years ago, there was an immense amount of flooding. After that there seemed to be an upsurge of ragwort, and it is thought that some of the seeds were carried down in the water in the rivers and spread around. I agree that there is a need for more research.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, normal wind conditions are clearly not the only way in which ragwort seed is spread. That is certainly true. It is also spread by animals and vehicles. We need to take account of all those factors.
	The right reverend Prelate made a point about the application of herbicides. The code already talks about targeted use. If we are trying to restrict the effect on any other hedgerow and field plants, we clearly need to ensure that that is as tight as possible. Representations on that front will clearly be taken into account in drafting the final version of the code of practice.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am not sure whether it is appropriate for me to utter very much, as I have already indicated that I shall not press the amendment. I thank everyone who has spoken, and I particularly appreciate the manner in which the Minister responded to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Fire Services Bill

Bill returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
	House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before midnight.